Sisyphus - Journal of Education - Vol 2, Issue 2

SCIENCE EDUCATION
IN THE 21ST CENTURY:

CHALLENGES AND CONCERNS
RACHEL MAMLOK-NAAMAN
& DVORA KATCHEVICH
SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY:

INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF LISBON
V O L . 0 2 I S S U E 2 2 0 1 4
Introduction by Rachel Mamlok-Naaman

and Dvora Katchevich
LINKING FORMAL AND NON-FORMAL LEARNING IN

SCIENCE EDUCATION A REFLECTION FROM TWO
CASES IN IRELAND AND GERMANY
Nicole Garner, Sarah M. Hayes and Ingo Eilks
Silvija Markic
CHEMISTRY TEACHERS INTRODUCE

HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENTS TO ADVANCED
TOPICS USING A POSTER EXHIBITION OF
CONTEMPORARY ORGANIC CHEMISTRY
Ron Blonder and Inga Meshulam
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF OPEN-ENDED

INQUIRY-TYPE CHEMISTRY EXPERIMENTS
THAT ENABLE ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSE
j o u rnal of edu cati on v ol .2
HETEROGENEITY CHALLENGE AND/OR

OPPORTUNITY IN SCIENCE EDUCATION?
Dvora Katchevich, Rachel Mamlok-Naaman

and Avi Hofstein
ENHANCING STUDENTS
MOTIVATION TO LEARN CHEMISTRY
Yamit Sharaabi-Naor, Miri Kesner and Yael Shwartz

INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION
AND SPECIAL NEEDS TEACHERS
REFLECTIONS ON AN INCLUSIVE SETTING
Simone Abels
I S S N : 2 1 8 2 - 8 4 74
9722182847056
05
j ou r na l o f ed u ca t i on v o l . 2
SC IENC E EDUC AT ION

IN T HE 2 1 ST C EN T URY:
C H A LLENGES A ND CONC ER NS
Edited by
Rachel Mamlok-Naaman & Dvora Katchevich
VOL. 02 ISSUE 2 2014
Editor
Jorge Ramos do O
Associate editors
Joo Filipe de Matos, Lus Miguel Carvalho
and Pedro Reis
Invited editors for this issue
Rachel Mamlok-Naaman and Dvora Katchevich
Editorial board
Heidi L. Andrade (University at Albany, USA); Julio
Groppa Aquino (Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil);
Joao Barroso (Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal);
Antonio Bolivar (Universidad de Granada, Spain);
Lyn Carter (Australian Catholic University,
Australia); Marcelo Caruso (Humboldt-Universitat
zu Berlin, Germany); Denice Barbara Catani
(Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil); Jose Alberto
Correia (Universidade do Porto, Portugal); Nilza
Costa (Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal); Ines
Dussel (Instituto Politecnico Nacional, Mexico);
Yrjo Engestrom (Helsingin Yliopisto, Finland);
Andreas Fejes (Linkopings Universitet, Sweden);
Cecilia Galvao (Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal);
Candido Gomes (Universidade Catolica de Brasilia,
Brazil); Donald Gray (University of Aberdeen, UK);
Franoise F. Laot (Universit de Reims ChampagneArdenne, France); Martin Lawn (University of
Edinburgh, UK); Stephen Lerman (London South
Bank University, UK); Ralph Levinson (University
of London, UK); Licinio C. Lima (Universidade do
Minho, Portugal); Salvador Llinares (Universidad
de Alicante, Spain); Justino Pereira de Magalhaes
(Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal); Christian
Maroy (Universite de Montreal, Canada); Joao
Filipe de Matos (Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal);
Antonio Novoa (Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal);
Dalila Andrade Oliveira (Universidade Federal de
Minas Gerais, Brazil); Jenny Ozga (University of
Oxford, UK); Joao Pedro da Ponte (Universidade de
Lisboa, Portugal); Thomas S. Popkewitz (University
of Wisconsin-Madison, USA); Marcos Reigota
(Universidade de Sorocaba, Brazil); Laurence
Simonneaux (Universite de Toulouse, France);
Feliciano H. Veiga (Universidade de Lisboa,
Portugal); Alfredo Veiga-Neto (Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil).
About this journal

Sisyphus Journal of Education
ISSN: 2182-8474 (printed version)
ISSN: 2182-9640 (online version)
Electronic version available, free of charge, at
http://revistas.rcaap.pt/sisyphus
Property
Institute of Education, University of Lisbon
Alameda da Universidade, 1649-013 Lisboa, Portugal
E-mail: sisyphus@ie.ulisboa.pt
Support
This journal is financed by national funds through
FCT Fundao para a Cincia e a Tecnologia
within the scope of the Strategic Project Unidade
de Investigao e Desenvolvimento em Educao
e Formao (contract PEst-OE/CED/UI4107/2014)
Secretariat
Gabriela Loureno
Proof-reading
AmeriConsulta, Ltd.
Design and Publishing
Edies Tinta-da-china
Printing
Guide, Artes Grficas
Legal deposit
356800/13
V O L . 0 2 I S S U E 2 2 0 1 4
Science Education in the 21st Century: Challenges and Concerns

Introduction by Rachel Mamlok-Naaman and Dvora Katchevich

10 Linking Formal and Non-Formal Learning in Science Education A
Reflection from Two Cases in Ireland and Germany
32
Heterogeneity Challenge and/or Opportunity in Science Education?

Silvija Markic
48
Chemistry Teachers Introduce High-School Students to Advanced

Topics Using a Poster Exhibition of Contemporary Organic Chemistry
74
The Characteristics of Open-Ended Inquiry-Type Chemistry

Experiments that Enable Argumentative Discourse
Dvora Katchevich, Rachel Mamlok-Naaman and Avi Hofstein
100
Enhancing Students Motivation to Learn Chemistry

124
Inquiry-Based Science Education and Special Needs

Teachers Reflections on an Inclusive Setting
Simone Abels
157
159
Notes on contributors
Submission guidelines
Sisyphus Journal of Education aims to be a place for debate on political, social, economic, cultural, historical, curricular and organizational aspects of education. It pursues an extensive research
agenda, embracing the opening of new conceptual positions and criteria according to present tendencies or challenges within the global educational arena.
The journal publishes papers displaying original researches theoretical studies and empiric
analysis and expressing a wide variety of methods, in order to encourage the submission
of both innovative and provocative work based on different orientations, including political
ones. Consequently, it does not stand by any particular paradigm; on the contrary, it seeks to
promote the possibility of multiple approaches. The editors will look for articles in a wide range
of academic disciplines, searching for both clear and significant contributions to the understanding of educational processes. They will accept papers submitted by researchers, scholars,
administrative employees, teachers, students, and well-informed observers of the educational
field and correlative domains. Additionally, the journal will encourage and accept proposals embodying unconventional elements, such as photographic essays and artistic creations.
Science Education in the 21st Century:

Challenges and Concerns
Introduction by Rachel Mamlok-Naaman & Dvora Katchevich (Editors)
Krajcik, Mamlok and Hug (2001) claimed, that during the twenty century, the
topics about which scientists and educators were concerned were: What is
worth learning in science, or How should students learn science? Science
and educators have continually struggled to make science teaching resemble the practice of science, and yet, there are still textbooks and classroom
practices persisting in providing cookbook styles and hands-on activities. The
release of the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) served as a landmark in identifying a comprehensive set of goals for
achieving scientific literacy for all American students.
The National Science Education Standards (NSES) define in broad terms
the scientific concepts and processes that all students should know and be
able to apply. Most importantly, they provide guidelines for assessing the
degree to which students have mastered the content of the standards. In
addition, the standards detail the teaching strategies and support necessary to deliver high-quality science education to all students, e.g., inquiry
skills. Inquiry has been a perennial and central term in the rhetoric of
past and present science education reforms in the United States. During the
second half of the twentieth century, good science teaching and learning
has come to be distinctly and increasingly associated with the term inquiry
(Anderson, 2002).
7
Students learn to do inquiry in the context of science content and develop

epistemological understandings about the nature of science (NOS) and the
development of scientific knowledge, as well as relevant inquiry skills (e.g.,
identifying problems, generating research questions, designing and conducting investigations, and formulating, communicating, and defending hypotheses, models, and explanations).
The issue consists of six papers. In all the six studies there has been done
an effort to find out what should be the best ways to motivate students to study
science, and to gain inquiry skills. Some studies (e.g. Fraser, 1982) revealed a
positive correlation and a causal relationship between achievement in science and attitude constructs, whereas others revealed no clear (or negative)
relationship between attitudes towards learning science and achievement
(Osborne & Dillon, 2008). International studies have shown that students
attitudes towards scientific disciplines depend on the extent of their active
participation in the learning process.
The main topics of the six studies of this issue are: (1) The link between
formal and non-formal learning in science education, (2) students linguistic
heterogeneity in science, (3) poster exhibition as an effective means of support for teachers to introduce contemporary chemistry topics to high school
students, (4) argumentation in the chemistry laboratory, (5) chemistry, industry, and the environment in the eyes of the individual and society, and (6)
the inclusion of students with special needs in science classes teaching them
inquiry-based activities. All the papers deal with studies which have the similar objectives: How can we involve as many students as possible in science
studies? How can we bridge the gap between formal and non-formal education? How can create a productive and encouraging learning environment?
We hope, that the variety of the topics discussed in this issue, will present
a broad picture of studies in science education which have been done in different institutions and countries, aiming at improving and enhancing students motivation and learning skills. These studies refer to a large population
of students and to innovations in science and in science education in the 21st
century. The papers address educators as well as to policy makers, in order to
improve and to enhance science education as much as possible.
Rachel Mamlok-Naaman
Dvora Katchevich
science education in the 21st century: challenges and concerns
R EF ER ENC E S
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says
about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
Fraser, B. (1982). How strong are attitude and achievement related? School
Science Review, 63, 557-559.
Krajcik, J., Mamlok, R., & Hug, B. (2001). Modern content and the enterprise of science: science education in the 20th century. In L. Corno (Ed.),
Education Across A Century: The Centennial Volume (pp. 205-238). Chicago, Illinois: National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE).
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections.
A report to the Nuffield foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/Sci_Ed_in_Europe_Report_Final.pdf.
*
Received: February 20, 2014
Final version received: April 18, 2014
Published online: June 28, 2014
rachel mamlok-naaman | dvora katchevich
linking formal and non-formal learning in science

education a reflection from two cases
in ireland and germany
Nicole Garner
ngarner@uni-bremen.de | Universitt Bremen, Germany
Sarah M. Hayes
sarah.hayes@ul.ie | University of Limerick, Ireland
Ingo Eilks
ingo.eilks@uni-bremen.de | Universitt Bremen, Germany
abstract
This paper discusses two cases of linking formal and non-formal learning in
science education. The cases concern science education in the Irish Transition Year, a facultative year between lower and upper secondary education,
and a non-formal laboratory learning environment for lower and upper secondary school students in a German university. Both cases are described,
compared and jointly reflected on non-formal educations potential and
limitations for supporting formal science learning.
key words
Science education; Non-formal education; Curriculum; Innovation.
SISYPHUS
journal of education
volume 2, issue 2,
2014, pp.10-31
Linking Formal and Non-Formal

Learning in Science Education
A Reflection from Two Cases in
Ireland and Germany
Nicole Garner | Sarah M. Hayes | Ingo Eilks
IN T RODUC T ION
Reform in education in general and in science education in particular is
an ongoing process. Educational reform regards, among others, the curriculum, the pedagogy or the educational system. How one links formal education in school with alternative and non-obligatory settings, for example
learning experiences in informal or non-formal settings, is a key element
which impacts on all of the three named dimensions of educational reform.
The OECD (2012) defines informal learning as out-of-school learning that is
unstructured and does not follow a specific curriculum, such as a visit to a
museum or science exhibit. Non-formal learning is also out-of-school learning but has a specific structure and is connected to some kind of a syllabus or
curriculum. Coll, Gilbert, Pilot and Streller (2013) note that despite the terms
informal and non-formal science education being both officially defined and
widely used they often are not coherently applied. Quite frequently the terms
are used to describe any school events that take place outside school or just
even outside the regular classes.
Both informal and non-formal educational settings for science education
offer broad possibilities. The potential settings range from field trips or industry visits, via specific learning environments in museums, science centres or
11
science departments in universities, towards non-obligatory science courses

offered on or off the school campus (Coll et al., 2013; Stocklmayer, Rennie &
Gilbert, 2010). Within this range, site visits or learning environments outside of
the school campus clearly belong to the informal or non-formal sector although
sometimes the activity in them is clearly connected to the formal science curriculum applied in the school and participation for students is compulsory. Nonobligatory courses in the school typically belong to the formal sector, but due
to the fact that they are not compulsory and not always structured by a given
curriculum they may have quite an informal character. Thus the distinction
between formal and non-formal education is not always easy. There are types
of alternative educational settings that are somewhere between pure formal
and pure non-formal educational settings. Some of them are even connected to
informal educational activities. One might call them partially non-formal.
All the different activities from informal, non-formal, and partially nonformal education offer specific chances to learn more or different science in
addition to the regular formal science classes in school. This paper presents
two such educational settings from Ireland and Germany. One of the settings is science education in the Irish Transition Year (TY), a facultative year
between lower and upper secondary education. The TY is not compulsory and
does not follow a formal curriculum, yet is offered in the majority of Irish
schools. The other approach concerns science education modules offered in a
non-formal science laboratory for secondary students in a German university
called Schlerlabor (SL). The visits of the SL, in most cases, are compulsory
for all students when the teachers or schools decide to visit the laboratory as
an official school event and in many cases the activities follow a prescribed
structure and the learning is clearly connected to the school science curriculum. Both concepts will be discussed, compared and jointly reflected upon,
examining the opportunities and limitations of the respective partially nonformal educational initiatives for formal science education.
SC IENC E EDUC AT ION IN T HE IR ISH T R A NSIT ION Y E A R

The Irish Transition Year (TY), which forms a part of the Irish second-level
education system, is an anomaly, often referred to as a delicate flower in
the educational garden (Jeffers, 2008, p. 5). The TY is a curriculum free year
between the junior and senior cycle of secondary education. The TY is designed
12
linking formal and non-formal learning in science education
to act as a bridging year, between the two examinable cycles of secondary level
education. It was designed to enable pupils to move away from the highly
structured, formally examinable education program which prevails throughout the Irish schools system (Jeffers, 2011; Smyth, Dunne, McCoy & Darmody,
2007). Students are on average 15-16 years old when they take the TY. However,
schools are not obliged to offer the TY, and if they do pupils are not always
obliged to take it. Each school has the autonomy to offer the TY in a fashion
that they deem appropriate for their own school, schools must only adhere to
a set of TY guidelines (Department of Education, 1993).
Initially the TY was introduced as a top-down initiative, with little planning and limited support for schools (Smyth, Byrne & Hannon, 2004). The TY
has been characterised by uncertainty, from its initial inception, to its current day form. This characterisation is both in terms of monetary provision
and in terms of the attitudes of parents, teachers, pupils and policymakers
towards the TY (Jeffers, 2002, 2008, 2011). Much of this is due to the autonomy
and the ambiguity of the TY guidelines. With teachers and schools free to
design their own programmes, the guidelines state that:
The school should ensure therefore that, in all areas studied, there is a clear
distinction between the Transition Year programme and the corresponding
Leaving Certificate syllabus. A Transition Year programme is NOT part of the
Leaving Certificate programme, and should NOT be seen as an opportunity
for spending three years rather than two studying Leaving Certificate material (Department of Education, 1993, p. 2).
The educational categorization of the TY is complex and it is difficult to

define the type of learning or educational setting which occurs during this
year. Under the OECD guidelines the TY has aspects of formal, informal and
non-formal learning embedded within it. It encompasses both non-formal
and informal learning in a formal setting. The learning is not necessarily
linked to a syllabus or curriculum (although sometimes it is in a non-formal
fashion), it tends to take place in the formal school setting, yet many informal field trips are encouraged. Perhaps the term partially non-formal may be
most appropriate, as elements of informal, non-formal and formal all ensue
throughout the year.
This lack of certainty has characterized the TY. The educational freedom is
not always embraced by schools, teachers or policy makers. Change in practices
nicole garner | sarah m. hayes | ingo eilks
13
can often be met with resistance (Dalin, 1993). The TY is an important example
of school and curriculum reform in Ireland, despite its initial beginnings as a
top-down initiative; it is a prominent example for its notable opportunities for
innovation and development. The autonomous nature of the year has meant
that school culture has had a very prominent role to play in the development
and delivery of the TY among schools. Every school and department has its own
specific character conditioned by its history, staffing and the school in which
it was set (Donnelly, 2000, p. 272). Hayes (2011) and Smyth et al. (2004) found
that provision of the TY varies dramatically across school types and school gender intakes. The highest levels of provision have been found in single-sex female
schools, particularly in secondary and community and comprehensive schools.
The lowest levels of provision are in vocational schools. The size of the school
has also been found to be a factor in whether the year is offered to pupils, with
the highest level of provision occurring in large schools. Schools also differ in
whether they offer the program as an option to their pupils, or whether they
made it compulsory. Co-educational secondary schools are more likely to offer
the program on a compulsory basis than other schools. In addition, where small
schools offer the year they are also more likely to make it compulsory, as they
may not have adequate facilities or staffing to do otherwise, while a compulsory
TY make it a viable year in small schools. Currently, the TY is offered by over
80% of the schools and uptake of the TY raised from 40% to over 60% of the students in recent years. We can infer a number of reasons for this, such as pupils
staying in school longer due to the economic crisis Ireland has been experiencing or people valuing the TY and the opportunities it offers to a greater extent.
For science education, the TY provides a unique opportunity for teachers
to teach science in an imaginative and authentic way without the confines
of a syllabus or central examinations. It offers teachers the exciting prospect of changing pupils views of science through teaching interesting and
authentic material: Transition Year is an opportunity for pupils to become
familiar with a broad range of Science activities. Pupils should be encouraged
to study areas of Science not heretofore encountered (Department of Education, 1993, p. 27). The TY guidelines state that any science module taught in
the year should explore the links between science and society (Department
of Education, 1993, p. 29). As a result, the TY has given rise to curriculum
innovation in many subject areas including science (Hayes, Childs & ODwyer,
2013; Regan, 2005). The TY guidelines (Department of Education, 1993) suggest that schools place particular emphasis on negotiated learning, personal
14
responsibility in learning, activity-based learning, integration of appropriate

areas of learning, team teaching approaches, group work, discussion, debate,
interview, role play, project- and research-based learning, visiting speakers
and seminars, study visits and field trips, or work experience, work simulation, community service. The use of a wide variety of learning theories is
advocated, like situated cognition (Greeno, 1988; Smith & Matthews, 2000) or
inquiry-based science education (Childs, 1994; Hofstein, Kipnis & Abrahams,
2012). TY Science, with its partially non-formal nature offers an opportunity
for teachers to contextualize science in a different way and put science education research into practice without the time or content constraints of a formal curriculum and the pressure of formal exams. Previous interventions
to utilize the year to promote the uptake of science at senior cycle have been
relatively successful (Childs, Hayes, Lynch & Sheehan, 2010; Matthews, 2010;
Smith & Mathews, 2000).
In 2011, Hayes presented a broad analysis focusing the place of science in
the Irish TY, by viewing it through the eyes of the key players: the pupils,
teachers, and schools. The study focused on the implications for teaching science in a partially non-formal learning environment. The results indicate that
the type of classroom activities experienced by TY pupils (when compared to
junior cycle pupils) are more varied. The traditional classroom activities of
writing in, answering questions from, or reading of a science textbook are
experienced by Junior Certificate pupils with a far greater frequency than TY
pupils, although not at a significant level. Significant differences were found
that TY pupils experience more frequent working with apparatus or materials, group work, pupil presentations, watching TV/DVDs/Videos on scientific
phenomena, use of computers and internet, listening to visiting speakers, or
taking part in activities such as science fairs. These trends are also noted in
terms of assessment, with Junior Certificate pupils experiencing quite traditional assessments, such as written and oral tests with a far greater frequency
than their TY counterparts, however once again not at a significant level.
One of the key findings in the study was that two thirds of teachers are
teaching from the Leaving Certificate/Senior Cycle Science syllabi. This practice is carried out, in the main, to allow pupils a taste of science subjects for
their Leaving Certificate; although close to a fifth of teachers do so in order
to decrease their workload for the Leaving Certificate program. The teachers,
although working in schools that have above average levels of science uptake
for senior cycle, added a further insight into their rationale: they believed
15
that it aided the pupils, due to the time constraints in the senior cycle science
syllabi, to prepare themselves better for the Leaving Certificate course.
The teachers were asked about their own degree and subject background.
The majority had a background in the biological sciences, either alone or in
combination with another subject. Perhaps this explains the high levels of
the biological sciences taught in the TY, and the pupils significantly more
positive perceptions of the biological sciences. The body of research surrounding this area indicates that a teachers background and subject specialism
affects their self-efficacy and practices (Kind, 2009; Shulman, 1987; Van Driel,
De Jong & Verloop, 2002). Research has indicated the importance of subject
specialists teaching within their own field (Davis, 2003; Hashweh, 1987; Kind,
2009). The teachers who took part in this study believed that it is of vital
importance that teachers teach within their subject specialism in TY Science,
in order to allow their pupils a better experience of the subject, and to encourage better uptake of the subjects at the Leaving Certificate level. It seems that
the biological sciences are the most popular science subjects among TY pupils
because the majority of teachers have a respective background, and therefore
feel more comfortable teaching these topics. Thus, the TY is currently doing
little to reduce the dominance of biology at the senior secondary cycle.
The experiences with TY science allow us to derive some of the important elements to a successful partially non-formal science education program.
School culture, teacher preparedness, and pupils perception of science and
scientific careers all have a part to play. There can be a tendency for schools
to domesticate the TY. This is an understandable, but potentially dangerous
practice as it may lead to the TY becoming colonized by the Leaving Certificate curriculum (Jeffers, 2007). Science is considered to be a vital, essential
and important element of the TY programme. Overall, the subject is held
in high regard among science teachers and TY co-ordinators, though many
teachers struggle to develop their own curriculum for the subject. Biology, in
particular is taught by the largest proportion of teachers. Perhaps the higher
number of biology specialists in schools contributes to this or it may be due to
the schools timetabling and organisation of the subjects.
The results of the study by Hayes (2011) begs the question as to why do
teachers, teaching TY science, use the particular teaching methodologies and
teach the content reported in this study? Many activities, such as discussion,
debate and self-directed learning, which are integral to becoming a scientifically-literate citizen and to understanding the nature of science (Eilks, Prins
16
& Lazarowitz, 2013), are not being experienced to a great extent by pupils in
either the TY or Junior Certificate science classrooms. It is proposed that the
answer lies within the area of teacher preparedness. The question of how
prepared teachers are to teach TY science was not one of the initial research
questions, however, as the study progressed the theme of teacher preparedness was one which could not be overlooked. There were many indications
that there is a severe lack of preparation for teachers involved in teaching
in TY science. Nearly three-quarters (71.3%) of teachers believe that they did
not receive adequate pre-service education in order to teach in or design a
TY science curriculum, and only a third of teachers had ever attended such
in-service education. The more experienced the teacher (the longer they have
been teaching), the more likely they were to have attended these sessions.
Perhaps in-service education that was provided concerning TY science was
not equal in terms of geographical location, or perhaps education has not been
provided in more recent years. This unequal provision of education leaves
teachers inadequately prepared to take on the mantle of curriculum development, and teachers appear to have become entrenched in familiar and traditional practices (Halton, 2004; Hargreaves, 1996, 2003).
The question arises, how are our teachers to teach in an informal, nonformal or partially non-formal learning environment if initial teacher education and continuous professional development for teachers is so inextricably
bound to the curricula and syllabi of the time? As Ross, Lakin and Callaghan
noted At best they (pupils) have a scientific system that is good enough to
pass examinations. But after the crops have been harvested the land is bare,
the ideas are lost and everyday life is unaffected (2004, p. 56). Science in
the TY is in a state of continual flux, and teachers appear to be undecided
about what it and the attributes of the year should be. This is in part due to
the ambiguity of the guidelines (Department of Education, 1993), which while
explicitly stating on one hand that the TY is NOT a part of the Leaving Certificate program, and teachers should not teach Leaving Certificate material,
it then also states that the TY does not need to exclude Leaving Certificate
material, but the Leaving Certificate material should be chosen with a view
to augment the Leaving Certificate experience, laying a solid foundation for
Leaving Certificate studies (Department of Education, 1993, p. 5).
It is easily seen how teachers and schools receive mixed messages. This
ambiguity has led a majority of science teachers to teach from the Leaving Certificate Science courses in the year. It has become the norm to teach aspects
17
of the Leaving Certificate in the TY, with teachers not wanting their pupils
to fall behind. Teachers are also wary of departing from familiar practices
and express concern regarding teaching outside the box, without the security
of routine practices and a familiar syllabus to rely on. Previous research in
schools (Fullan, 1993, 2001; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1992; Hargreaves, 1989, 2003;
Hargreaves, Earl & Ryan, 1996) tells us that change is difficult and leaving
familiar and cosy practices to change traditions is not an easy task.
Like the TY itself, science education in the TY has the potential to be a
relevant, imaginative, and challenging innovation. The subject is enriching
for pupils, teachers and the whole school. However, there are undertones of
resistance. This resistance is not explicit, but is recognizable and detectable
as inadvertent and unconscious practices and attitudes. The TY and teaching
science within the year asks much of science teachers, particularly without
them having adequate preparation for teaching their subject within the year.
Teachers in Ireland have been trained to prepare their pupils to pass examinations, not to develop lessons which link to socio-scientific issues and contribute a societal perspective on science as it is demanded for a well-developed
scientific literacy (Hofstein, Eilks & Bybee, 2011). The links to authentic science education are not made explicit and teachers are ill-equipped to fully
utilize the partially non-formal nature of the TY. Braund and Reiss (2006)
argue that we need to reconsider the site of learning in science education
in order to revitalise the subject and provide authenticity and meaning. The
Irish TY offers the opportunity to do just this, bridging the formal and informal/non-formal gap, yet is a cautionary tale, if teachers are not prepared and
educated beyond the narrow confines of the school curriculum they may well
be unable to fully utilise this opportunity in any meaningful way.
SC IENC E EDUC AT ION U N DER INC LUSION

OF A NON-FOR M A L L A BOR AT ORY IN GER M A N Y
For about twenty years, there has been trend in Germany to establish nonformal laboratory environments for primary and secondary school students
at universities and research institutes. In Germany, these laboratories are
named Schlerlabor (Haupt et al., 2013) which can be translated as student
laboratory (SL), where Schler in German means the school student and not
the university student. More than 300 of such laboratories exist all over Ger18
many, however, every laboratory has a specific focus and thus not every science domain is available at every regional environment.
The SL were founded in order to support science learning by offering outof-school experiences and practical work that is not possible to implement in
schools due to lack of equipment, high costs, or poor facilities. The rationale
behind this scheme was to improve students motivation to undertake further
studies in science and engineering. Visits typically include half- or full-day
excursions to excellently equipped laboratories where a practical lesson takes
place. Quite often the programme is prescribed, but the laboratory visit is
not necessarily connected to the school curriculum. Thus these laboratories
belong mainly to the non-formal educational sector (Haupt et al., 2013).
If the programme in the SL is not attuned to the learning in school the
students frequently do not link experiences and knowledge gained in the nonformal setting with their formal learning in school. Also, the motivational
effects are slight if students visit the non-formal learning environment only
once for half a day. In such cases, the educational effectiveness of a trip to an
external laboratory might sometimes not be worth the effort (Orion & Hofstein, 1994). Thus, a good connection between in- and out-of-school learning is
needed to benefit from the multifaceted advantages (Griffin, 2004).
Hofstein and Rosenfeld (1996) or Rennie (2007) explain that non-formal
learning, if it is to be connected to formal education, needs to coincide with
the syllabus, and it should be flexible so that it can be adopted to individual
teachers and learning groups pre-requisites. The out-of-school experience has
to be accompanied by preparation and post-processing elements in school, and
all materials used as part of non-formal laboratory environments need to be
consistent with the students abilities and prior knowledge.
The project Sustainability and chemistry in non-formal student laboratories tries to follow these suggestions exactly (Garner, Lischke, Siol &
Eilks, 2014). The project is a cooperation of two SL located in Bremen and
Saarbrcken, Germany. Experts in chemistry, environmental sciences and
chemistry education are working closely together within the project in order
to develop half- and full-day non-formal laboratory-based learning environments for the SL. Issues of sustainability in chemistry related contexts are
chosen as a topic because chemistry is seen as prototypical domain to learn
about sustainability issues and contribute to Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (Burmeister, Rauch & Eilks, 2012). For the whole range of secondary education in grades 5-13 (age range 10-19) modules that fit in specific
19
lesson units from the governmental syllabi are offered. The topics offered in
the learning environments range, e.g., from usage of renewable raw materials (in grade 5/6), via chemistry of the atmosphere (in grade 7/8) and biofuels
(grade 9/10), to modern technologies and synthesis strategies in the chemical
industry (senior high school level).
Similar to the Irish TY this project also links formal and non-formal education by making the non-formal activity part of the school curriculum. As
such the visit of the SL becomes a compulsory learning activity for all students where the teachers or schools decide to make the laboratory visit part of
the science teaching in their classes. So here we have a setting which is essentially the reverse of the Irish TY. The setting is non-formal, but nevertheless
has partially a formal character.
One of the central aims of this SL-initiative is to link non-formal and formal learning in a meaningful manner, thus making the out-of-school experience a component of formal school education and contributing to fulfilling
the school curriculum. For this purpose, flexible and individually adaptable
teaching and learning modules related to the governmental syllabus were
created. 10-20 experiments for each topic are offered in a handbook from
which the teacher can make a selection according to the curriculum applied
in school. In negotiation with the accompanying university staff, the teachers
select those experiments and materials that fit best to their objectives, their
individual teaching style and the students abilities. Additional information
and working materials are also offered for preparation and post-processing
the laboratory visit in school (Garner et al., 2014).
During the SL-visit, emphasis is placed on contextualized, inquiry-based
and student-orientated learning (Garner et al., 2014). Laboratory instructions
offered within the project use different degrees of openness and complexity. Tasks in the laboratory allow variation from structured to open inquiry
(Abrams, Southerland & Evans, 2007). The students work in small teams and
solve their tasks cooperatively and autonomously. Situated cognition (Greeno,
1988) suggests learning to be most effective if it is embedded into meaningful contexts. Contexts that are bound to chemical technology, research and
industry (e.g. Hofstein & Kesner, 2006) as well as to societal relevant issues
(e.g. Hofstein et al., 2011) are among the most promising frameworks through
which to connect chemistry learning with all the different dimensions that
make the learning of science relevant (Stuckey, Mamlok-Naaman, Hofstein &
Eilks, 2013). Accordingly, this project operates a context-based and societal20
oriented approach to science learning. The contexts are current and authentic practices of research and industrial applications of chemistry to promote
a more sustainable development for the future. The spectrum of examples
ranges from daily-life, natural and industrial products (such as vanillin, plastics and fuels) and authentic and controversial societal issues (such as climate
change and renewable energy supply) to research relevant emphases (such as
click chemistry and zeolites as highly selective catalysts). Overall, the activities aim to support practical learning of science content, better understanding of the nature of science, and development of positive and critical attitudes
and motivation towards science and technology.
A non-mandatory part of each SL-module is a field trip into research laboratories in the university or branches of industry that fit the thematic issue
of the SL-lesson and that operate sustainability strategies in an authentic
research or industry context. These trips are intended to make the context
of learning even more authentic and allow for career orientation. Finally, all
the modules are structured in a way that contents and contexts are in line
with the national German science education standards as well as the regional
syllabi in question.
The various SL-modules within this project were prepared from February 2012 onwards. More than 600 students visited the non-formal chemistry
laboratories of the project partners so far. In all the SL-visits, both teachers
and students are invited to contribute to a survey prior to and after visiting
the university laboratory. The questions focus the prior expectations of the
teachers and students towards the visit in the SL and into their experiences
and reflections thereafter (Garner et al., 2014).
In the responses, the teachers supported a need for more intense practical
work in science classes. The following two exemplary statements reflect the
teachers expectations towards SL visits in general:
The students should have the opportunity to experiment in several ways.
Interest needs to be promoted. (Answer to the question regarding what needs
to be done by SLs to be worthwhile)
The offered topic was focused in class. Because of the high expenditure of
time and materials experimentations were not possible in the schooling context. Therefore, the visit in the SL supplements formal learning in school.
(Answer to the question regarding the function of SLs for teaching purposes)
21
The teachers indicated that it is difficult for them to conduct appropriate

experiments in their schools because of time constraints, insufficient equipment, and overloaded curricula. There was hope that the visit to the SL would
enrich the practice of laboratory work in their classes. The teachers expected
the SL to also contribute to promoting motivation in science learning. The
teachers attributed motivational potential to the societal relevant aspects of
the experience, such as providing students with insights into university education as well as chemistry which is relevant to everyday life. A large number
of participating teachers stated that SL-modules should be easy to integrate
into formal learning. These teachers believe non-formal learning environments can support school learning. The project enables this by connecting all
SL-modules to the regional science syllabus and thus to the school curriculum.
Although all the SL-modules were clearly connected to the school curriculum,
only a few of the teachers expected content learning to fulfil part of the school
curriculum and governmental syllabus. From the teachers perspective support with practical work would be most welcome. The teachers believe that
the visit to the SL should have other benefits beyond cognitive school achievement. This offers a contrast when compared with the students point of view,
in that they expected better marks after visiting the SL. More than 80% of the
students agreed partly or fully with this statement. Almost 90% of the students
expected to have a pleasant laboratory and research experience in the SL. They
look forward to do more experiments than in the regular school context.
Only one percent of students were not excited to visit the SL. This finding
indicates that visiting the SL has the potential to affect students attitudes
and motivation towards chemistry and science learning. The students connected their positive expectations mainly with their hope to do interesting
experiments; especially those that cannot be done in schools (e.g. experiments
with ozone in a module on the chemistry of the atmosphere where ozone is
no longer allowed in German school laboratories). Students seem to be aware
that school laboratory conditions are far from perfect for doing inquiry-type
and open experiments. They suggested a major difference between formal
and non-formal learning is the frequency of experimentation before visiting
the SL. Practical work seems to be an important element of chemistry lessons
from the students point of view. They would like to conduct experiments in
order to advance their own learning process.
The lack of availability of equipment and chemicals in schools was criticized
by many students, as was the 45-minutes slots allocated to the science lessons,
22
which they believed hinders inquiry and open practical work. The students
explicitly expressed their view that there is a gap in open and problem-based
experiments in school and their hope for a different experience in the SL. However, the students also hoped to gain a better understanding of chemical content having visited the SL and as a result expected to later improve upon their
grades in school. The majority of students did not want to see the SL separated
from formal learning in school. They expected something more tangible, particularly in terms of getting better marks in school, however, that is inevitable.
The teachers and students experience was very positive throughout. It
was quite similar among the different modules and grade levels of the students. After the visit, the overwhelming majority of teachers and students
enjoyed the unfamiliar, non-formal atmosphere of visiting the SL. Orion and
Hofstein (1991) suggested that the development of a more positive student attitude towards learning science could be fostered by visiting informal and nonformal learning environments. After visiting the SL, more than 90% of the
students stated that they had enjoyed their time there, even students that had
stated a dislike against the SL-visit before.
I especially liked that we did our experiments on our own. When we needed
help to solve the questions, the university staff helped us.
I liked that we do thinks I never would have done otherwise. I saw those
thinks just in books in school.
The students particularly highlighted the experimental approach that often

is neglected in school. The staff-student ratio was also an important aspect
of SL-visits. In Germany, one teacher is responsible for classes containing up
to 35 students. Heterogeneous groups make individual advancement almost
impossible in a school setting. In the SL the staff-student-ratio is different
as there are at least three tutors per class during the SL-visit. The teacher is
always supported by at least two university staff members. Therefore, students questions are given more attention and time. Only a small minority
of students was not looking forward to the visit or was disappointed after it.
Connecting science learning to authentic and innovative issues from the sustainability debate, as described e.g. in Burmeister and Eilks (2012), embedded
into the non-formal learning experience was motivating and meaningful to the
learners. Some students mentioned that working in the SL was exhausting. That
23
is why it was suggested that the SL-sessions should not exceed 3 hours. The teachers gave similar feedback. Almost all teachers were positive about the design of
the SL in general and the experiments in particular. The quality of the tutors
associated with the SL was noted by the students, this was also an important
aspect of the experience for the teachers. Additionally and in contrast to the
students the teachers placed a significant emphasis on the quality of the organization of the experience and the connection to the school curriculum and the
official syllabus.
The teachers followed their students behaviour in the SL with great interest. Several teachers mentioned during or after the SL-visit that they saw their
students from a completely different angle. The lower achieving students in
particular surprised the teachers with their working behaviour during the SLvisit. The teachers saw also benefits for themselves. Through visiting the SL
and supervising the students they learned about new strategies of sustainable
chemistry, they became familiar with new experiments, of which at least part
of, can be implemented into practical work in the school science classroom, and
they experienced how motivating the topics from the sustainability debate and
activities of an inquiry nature can be for their students. Many teachers noted
that they intended to integrate aspects from the SL into their regular classes.
From this perspective there is hope that the project contributes to teacher continuous professional development and through this pathway helps in implementing issues of sustainable development more thoroughly into school science
education in the future a deficit that has been described in different studies
(Burmeister & Eilks, 2013; Burmeister, Schmidt-Jacob & Eilks, 2013).
Limitations in the initiative lie in the geographical reach of the project.
Only schools from the local and regional environment of the respective universities are able to participate in the programme, and only students whose
teachers and schools take the initiative will be able to take part. It is also clear
that the effects of such visits are short-term if the visits are only singular. As
discussed in Stronck (1983), some studies in this area indicate a clear cognitive
gain stemming from visits to non-formal educational environments, while
others were not able to support these findings. The same applies to the motivational effects. DeWitt and Storksdieck (2008) explained this finding was
due to the short term nature of most non-formal learning events which may
not be suited to creating lasting cognitive and motivational effects. However,
there is little research investigating whether a repeated visit in such a nonformal learning environment will have more durable effects.
24
P O T EN T I A L S, LIM ITAT IONS A ND R ISK S OF NONA N D PA RT I A LLY NON-FOR M A L LE A R N ING

EN V IRONM EN T S IN SC IENC E EDUC AT ION
This paper discusses two approaches of linking formal and non-formal education. By the inclusion of expert discussions and excursions both also include
aspects of informal learning. However, both initiatives are diametrical cases.
In the Irish TY science learning is structured and taught by the regular science
teachers in their schools. The TY is available in more than 80% of the schools
and thus an almost nationally implemented initiative. The courses last a full
year, but do not follow any given curriculum or syllabus. Teaching materials
are rare and may be difficult to implement given the differing nature of TY science in each school. Teacher preparation for TY science is also under critique.
In the German initiative curriculum development is done by scientists and
curriculum experts from science education research. The teaching is supported
by scientists from the university. However, the non-formal laboratories are
only available in certain towns, particularly the bigger cities where universities are located. In this specific case, the modules described here are, so far,
only available in the two cities of Bremen and Saarbrcken and as such offered
only to schools in these two regional environments. On the other hand specific teaching materials are available that were designed based on a researchfunded development strategy. The content and applied are connected to the
governmental syllabus and thus to the school curriculum. Teachers get support
for preparing their students for the non-formal learning visit and later connecting the learning experience to formal education in class.
The advantage of the Irish initiative is that nearly all students have the
chance to apply for the opportunity to learn more varied and contextualised science. Unfortunately it seems that due to lacks in teacher pre- and inservice education the TY does not reach its upmost potential to support and
develop science teaching and learning. It is apparent that in the German case
the potential is better supported and this manifests in quality. However, this
concerns only quality and not quantity. Only a limited number of students
will be able to visit any of the non-formal laboratories and will experience
very few of these specific topics. This is particularly true of students in rural
areas where there is a significant distance to any respective SL. This fact can
be viewed quite critically when the SL is made a part of formal school education as the formal educational sector has to provide equity in educational
25
opportunities for all students. In addition and in contrast to the Irish TY,
SL-visits often remain single events and thus long-term effects are unlikely
to be gained.
Another aspect that is different is the question how the initiative relates to
teacher education. While the German SL, as described here, understands itself
as a project to contribute quality education to students it also understands
itself as providing implicit teacher pre- and in-service education. Pre-service
teachers complete part of the modules during their university programme,
learning new content from sustainable chemistry but also familiarising
themselves with the pedagogy, such as how to gain value from non-formal
educational settings like the SL. The in-service teachers accompanying their
students in the university laboratory have chance to update their content
knowledge and learn about new experiments and laboratory techniques. In
the Irish initiative, implementation was top-down and large scale. It appears
that there was an insufficient investment in teacher preparation for teaching
TY science and teachers feel overwhelmed and the challenge of carrying out
the curriculum development on their own is too great.
Both projects also intend reforming the way science is taught. In Ireland,
teachers in the TY are asked to apply a more open, student-centred pedagogy.
Single cases reported that more authentic, societal relevant and contextualized
chemistry was implemented in TY science courses and inquiry-based learning
was applied. Teaching materials in the form of handbooks were developed,
offering teachers ideas for more open and student-oriented teaching in science. There is hope that this change in the curriculum approach and pedagogy will be more broadly applied and, in due course, also influence science
teaching beyond the TY. However, there is no evidence yet. Also in the German SL project materials were developed encompassing modern approaches in
science curricula and pedagogies, namely more inquiry-based, contextualized
and societal-related learning in science. Part of the materials and experiments
can also be applied in regular classroom learning in schools that have not the
chance to visit the non-formal laboratory. There is hope that this will have a
positive influence on formal science education independent from non-formal
laboratory visits. However, in this instance evidence is also not available yet.
As a final note of caution it should be mentioned that in the changed curriculum approach and pedagogy applied in the TY and SL there may also be
an element of risk. If teachers see TY science as something different, alien
to normal science teaching they may not apply the modern more student-ori26
ented pedagogy and curriculum orientation throughout their classes outside

of the TY. If they believe that TY science is the place for contextualized science and practical learning they may allocate this style of teaching there and
do not develop emphasis to apply similarly modern science teaching also in
the regular science classes. The same may also be true for the SL visits. Practical work during the SL visit should be an add-on to formal science teaching.
Doing practical work during the laboratory visit shall not be used as an excuse
to reduce or skip practical learning in regular classes.
CONC LUSIONS
Both projects described in this paper show that a thorough connection of formal learning with non-obligatory and non-formal settings can be beneficial
for the teaching of science. However, both projects show also that this can be
done in totally different ways each of them having specific advantages and
also limitations. An area-wide offer in schools, as is the case in the Irish TY,
has potential to reach nearly every student. But it needs sufficient support
and teacher pre- and in-service training to reach its utmost potential. More
intense projects, like the German SL seem to work on a deeper level, but are
limited in range and influence. What both projects have in common is that
they have proven to have potential for the development of innovative teaching and learning ideas and materials. In the long run there is hope that ideas
and materials from both of these initiatives will find their way into the more
typical everyday science teaching and thus contribute to reform of the curriculum and pedagogy in science education - each in its own specific way.
R EF ER ENC E S
Abrams, E., Southerland, S. A., & Evans, C. A. (2007). Inquiry in the classroom: Identifying necessary components of a useful definition. In E. Abrams,
S. A. Southerland & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the science classroom: Realities and
opportunities (p. xi). Greenwich: Information Age.
Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum:
The contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1373-1388.
27
Burmeister, M., & Eilks, I. (2012). An example of learning about plastics and
their evaluation as a contribution to Education for Sustainable Development
in secondary school chemistry teaching. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 93-102.
Burmeister, M., & Eilks, I. (2013). German Chemistry student teachers and
trainee teachers understanding of sustainability and education for sustainable development. Science Education International, 24, 167-194.
Burmeister, M., Rauch, F., & Eilks, I. (2012). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and secondary chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research
and Practice, 13, 59-68.
Burmeister, M., Schmidt-Jacob, S., & Eilks, I. (2013). German chemistry
teachers knowledge and PCK of Green Chemistry and education for sustainable development. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 169-176.
Childs, P. E. (1994). Transition year chemistry: A NICE approach. Chemistry in
Action, 44, 16-18.
Childs, P. E., Hayes, S., Lynch, J., & Sheehan, M. (2010). Developing scientific literacy: TY science and science scrapbooks. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.),
Contemporary science education Implications from science education research about
orientations, strategies and assessment (pp. 57-68). Aachen: Shaker.
Coll, R. K., Gilbert, J. K., Pilot, A., & Streller, S. (2013). How to benefit from
the informal and interdisciplinary Dimension of Chemistry in Teaching? In
I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching chemistry A studybook (pp. 241-268). Rotterdam: Sense.
Dalin, P. (1993). Changing school culture (school development). London: Continuum.
Davis, E. A. (2003). Knowledge integration in science teaching: Analysing teachers knowledge development. Research in Science Education, 34, 21-53.
Department of Education. (1993). Transition year programmes guidelines,
1994-95. Retrieved from http://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/
Information/Curriculum-and-Syllabus/Transition-Year-/ty_transition_year_
school_guidelines.pdf.
DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school field trips: Key
findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies, 11, 181-197.
Donnelly, J. (2000). Departmental characteristics and the experience of secondary science teaching. Educational Research, 42, 261-273.
Eilks, I., Prins, G. T., & Lazarowitz, R. (2013). How to organise the chemistry
classroom in a student-active mode. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching
chemistry A studybook (pp. 183-212). Rotterdam: Sense.
28
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London:
Falmer.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. London: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1992). Whats worth fighting for in headship. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Garner, N., Lischke, M. L., Siol, A., & Eilks, I. (2014). Learning about chemistrys
contributions to sustainable development in a non-formal laboratory context for secondary level students. In K. D. Thomas & H. E. Muga (Eds.), Cases on pedagogical innovations for sustainable development (pp. 229-244). Hershey: IGI Global.
Greeno, J. G. (1988). Situations, mental models, and generative knowledge. In
D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of H. A.
Simon (pp. 285-318). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Griffin, J. (2004). Research on students and museums: Looking more closely at
the students in school groups. Science Education, 88, 59-70.
Halton, M. (2004). Opening a door to the learning society through teacher professional development: An examination of the policy and provision of professional development opportunities for second-level teachers in the republic of
Ireland. Irish Educational Studies, 23(2), 65-82.
Hargreaves, A. (1989). Curriculum and assessment reform. Ontario: OISE Press.
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: education in the age of insecurity. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Hargreaves, D. H. (1996). Teaching as a research based profession: possibilities and prospects. London: Teacher Training Agency.
Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., & Ryan, J. (1996). Schooling for change: Reinventing education for early adolescents. London: Falmer.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching and
learning of biology and physics. Teaching & Teacher Education, 3, 109-120.
Hayes, S. (2011). A critical examination and evaluation of the place of science in the Irish
Transition Year. Unpublished thesis (PhD). University of Limerick, Ireland.
Hayes, S., Childs, P. E., & ODwyer, A. (2013). Transition Year Science: An
action research curriculum development project. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen
(Eds.), Educational design research: Introduction and illustrative cases (pp. 733-754).
Enschede: SLO.
Haupt, O. J., Domjahn, J., Martin, U., Skiebe-Corette, P., Vorst, S., Zehren, W., & Hempelmann, R. (2013). Schlerlabor Begriffsschrfung und
Kategorisierung [Student laboratory Sharpening the term and categorization]. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 66 , 324-330.
29
Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education: a pedagogical justification and
the state of the art in Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1459-1483.
Hofstein, A., & Kesner, M. (2006). Industrial chemistry and school chemistry:
Making chemistry studies more relevant. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1017-1039.
Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Abrahams, I. (2012). How to learn in and from
the chemistry laboratory. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching chemistry A
studybook (pp. 153-282). Rotterdam: Sense.
Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and
informal science learning. Studies in Science Education, 28, 87-112.
Jeffers, G. (2002). Transition year and educational disadvantage. Irish Educational Studies, 21 (2), 47-64.
Jeffers, G. (2007). Attitudes to Transition Year: A report to the Department of Education
and Science. Maynooth: NUI Maynooth.
Jeffers, G. (2008). Innovation and resistence in Irish schooling: The case of the Transition
Year. Unpublished thesis (PhD). University of Limerick, Ireland.
Jeffers, G. (2011). The Transition Year programme in Ireland. Embracing and
resisting a curriculum innovation. The Curriculum Journal, 22, 81-76.
Kind, V. (2009). A conflict in your head: An exploration of trainee science teachers subject matter knowledge development and its impact on teacher selfconfidence. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1529-1562.
Matthews, P. (2010). Thinking global and acting local: An ecological approach
to understanding issues in school science education. In the proceedings of the
NCE-MSTL conference, Changing practice: Challenges and opportunities in mathematics and science teaching and learning. Limerick, Ireland.
OECD. (2012). Higher education and adult learning Recognition of non-formal and informal learning. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-school/
recognitionofnon-formalandinformallearning-home.htm.
Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1991). The measurement of students attitudes towards
scientific field trips. Science Education, 75, 513-523.
Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
31, 1097-1119.
Regan, E. M. (2005). Irish student and teacher perspectives on enrolments, subject choice,
attitudes towards science and the promotion of Leaving Certificate chemistry: The design,
30
implementation and evaluation of an in-school promotional intervention. Unpublished

thesis, (PhD). University of Limerick, Ireland.
Rennie, L. J. (2007). Learning science outside of school. In S. K. Abell & N. G.
Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research and science education (pp. 125-167). Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ross, K., Lakin, L., & Callaghan, P. (2004). Teaching secondary science. London:
David Fulton.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Smith, G., & Matthews, P. (2000). Science, technology and society in transition year: A pilot study. Irish Educational Studies, 19, 107-119.
Smyth, E., Byrne, D., & Hannon, C. (2004). The Transition Year programme: An
assessment. Dublin: The Liffey Press.
Smyth, E., Dunne, A., McCoy, S., & Darmody, M. (2007). Gearing up for the exams?
The experiences of third year students. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute and Liffey Press.
Stocklmayer, S., Rennie, L., & Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The roles of the formal
and informal sectors in the provision of effective science education. Studies in
Science Education, 46, 1-44.
Stronck, D. R. (1983). The comparative effects of different museum tours on childrens attitudes and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 283-290.
Stuckey, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Eilks, I. (2013). The
meaning of relevance in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49, 1-34.
Van Driel, J. H., De Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Science Teacher Education, 86, 572-590.
*
31
heterogeneity challenge and/or opportunity

in science education?
Silvija Markic
smarkic@uni-bremen.de | Universitt Bremen, Germany
abstract
The following paper focuses on a field of science research which has not yet been
thoroughly researched in many countries: mixed languages in the science classroom. This area represents terra incognita in many areas of science education research. First, this paper will define the term heterogeneity and contrast it with
the term diversity. According to the literature, one word stands for challenges,
while the other highlights the opportunities arising from heterogeneity in science
classrooms. The focus here will be on students linguistic heterogeneity in science.
The main part of this paper discusses a collaborative research and development
project carried out by in-service science teachers, teachers of German as a Second Language (GSL), and science educators. The project was developed under the
framework of Participatory Action Research in science education. It focuses on the
development of teaching modules for early lower secondary science (grades 5 to
7, ages 10-13) on different topics, including matter and its properties and water.
The teaching modules consequently implement learning content and language as
envisioned in the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach. After
focusing on linguistic heterogeneity and various means for dealing with it, the
question of whether such heterogeneity in science classes represents a challenge
and/or an opportunity will be raised and discussed.
key words
Heterogeneity; Language; Challenges; Opportunities.
SISYPHUS
volume 2, issue 2,
2014, pp.32-47
Heterogeneity Challenge and/or

Opportunity in Science Education?
Silvija Markic
IN T RODUC T ION
There is currently a high level of migration from one country to another due to
worldwide economic changes (globalization). Populations in many countries
are therefore becoming increasingly diluted and heterogeneous in the ethnic,
linguistic and cultural sense. These changes are noticeable in school settings
around the world, since classroom heterogeneity is also on the rise. In many
countries like the US and Germany, is this effect not a new one. For example, Germany has served as the crossroads of Europe for centuries and has also
seen large ethnic changes in its population since the end of the Second World
War. These changes have influenced the research occurring in both general
and science education. However, since science education research in the US has
a long tradition, this field has also affected German research efforts, especially
since the publication of such international comparative studies as PISA and
TIMMS. Factors covering the changes in school populations have also become
much more obvious since PISA and TIMMS were published (Lynch, 2001).
There are many differences in research carried out in this field in different countries. Independent of global location, however, the special research
focus almost always tends to delve into students` linguistic skills in the
official language(s) of a given country. But the question remains, whether
33
such studies are actually comparable or not. Are the results really transferable between different countries, school systems and pupils? We can use
the US and Germany as an example: 1) The English and German languages
are widely different, despite their common ancestry. 2) The school systems
in both countries differ broadly in their sizes, amounts of resources, school
laws, curricula, educational foci, organization, etc. 3) The chances for successful entry into and learning success within such systems for students with
migration backgrounds vary widely at the State and national levels. 4) The
ethnic, cultural, economic, educational, etc. backgrounds of both foreigners
and second- or third-generation citizens are not comparable. The US currently
has large numbers of Latin and South Americans, however, immigrant groups
include people from all around the world. Germany has mainly Turkish, Arabic, Polish and Russian minorities with smaller numbers from Greece, Italy
and Spain. 5) The degree of migration differs. In the US pupils tend to be
mainly from either newly-arrived or refugee families. In Germany students
were to a large extent born in Germany, but have parents who immigrated
coming from another country.
With all of the above differences and varying national reactions to
increasing diversity, the main question should be whether such heterogeneity
is something that should be viewed as a burden or rather be perceived as an
opportunity when it comes to science education. Furthermore, we must also
recognize that the terms used to describe such differences vary widely and
are not universal in their application.
This paper presents a project by the University of Bremen in which inservice science teachers and science researchers have taken up the challenge
of linguistically heterogeneous classes and used it as an opportunity for continuous professional development.
C L A R IF IC AT ION OF T HE T ER M S
In the research literature for science education, two terms dominate the discussion dealing with varying student requirements for successful learning:
heterogeneity and diversity. The choice of the definition often depends both on
the research tradition in the country where the study originates and the overall context of the study. However, the terms are used as separate constructs,
which frequently overlap and then become synonyms. Studies performed in
34
heterogeneity challenge and/or opportunity in science education?
English-speaking countries mainly use the term diversity. As mentioned

above, this field of research has a longer tradition than research efforts in
Germany. The National Education Association (NEA) defines diversity
() as the sum of the ways that people are both alike and different. The
dimensions of diversity include race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation,
language, culture, religion, mental and physical ability, class, and immigration status. While diversity itself is not a value-laden term, the way that
people react to diversity is driven by values, attitudes, beliefs, and so on. Full
acceptance of diversity is a major principle of social justice (http://diversity.
dpsk12.org/definitions).
Since educational research in this field in Germany is not that old, the terms
heterogeneity and diversity are often understood to be synonyms of each
other. Many different perspectives can be labelled as heterogeneity and
diversity. However, differences in understanding these two terms and the
paradigms hidden behind them are slowly beginning to emerge in Germanys
educational world. School systems are also being influenced by the decision
to move schools more firmly in the direction of inclusion. Whereas the
paradigm of heterogeneity perceives difference as a challenge to be dealt with
actively, diversity as a systemic paradigm perceives difference as an asset
and a resource for learning (Sliwka, 2010, p. 213, Figure 1).
HOMOGENEITY
Learners grouped in one kind
of educational institution
are perceived to be similar
and therefore get the same
treatment.
Difference not acknowledged.
HETEROGENEITY
Learners are perceived to be
different. Adjustments are
made to come to terms with
their different needs.
DIVERSITY
Learners are perceived to be
different. Their difference
serves as a resource for
individual and mutual
learning and development.
Difference seen as a challenge

to be dealt with.
Difference seen as an asset

and opportunity.
figure 1 paradigm shift from homogeneity to heterogeneity to diversity

(sliwka, 2010, p. 214).
Looking at the possible differences which students in the classroom may bring
with them, we quickly recognize a broad spectrum. Students possess many
different, often highly individual prerequisites in the classroom and an ideal
silvija markic
35
teacher is supposed cope with each and every one. These differences are multifarious among the student body, but they also overlap in many areas. In the
American literature these differences are summarized in eight main dimensions which are represented as The Big Eight. Krell, Riedmller, Sieben and
Vinz (2007) listed the following eight dimensions as important: age, gender,
ethnicity, religion, race, sexual orientation, functional role, and mental/
physical ability. Another representation commonly employed is the diversity
wheel, which is mostly used for diversity management in large organizations.
It distinguishes between internal and external dimensions (see Figure 2).
The different dimensions of diversity and the concepts presented by Sliwka
(2010) give us one possible starting point. We might suggest that since we are
concerned with the language and science classes, we should positively focus on
linguistic heterogeneity instead of linguistic diversity. Language in the science
classroom represents much more of a challenge than is commonly perceived,
since science teachers cant use pupils` poor linguistic skills as an asset so that
other students can learn more. (This is definitely not true for language classes.)
However, other dimensions such as culture can be viewed as opportunities in
teaching and learning. They can serve as a resource for the individual while also
supporting mutual learning and development processes.
work experience
appearance
race /
ethnicity
mental /
physical
ability
education
political
belief
age
gender
identity or
expression
religion
gender
sexual
orientation
family
national
origin
income
language and
communication
skills
organizational
role
figure 2 diversity wheel (retrieved january 1, 2014,

from http://web.jhu.edu/dlc/resources/diversity _ wheel/)
36
DE SC R IP T ION OF T HE PROJEC T
About four years ago, a group of in-service teachers combined with education researchers from the University of Bremen to look at the issue of heterogeneity in the classroom. They used the difficulties faced by students with
poor linguistic skills and the subsequent problems confronted by teachers
when teaching in linguistically heterogeneous classes as a starting point for
their study. The research and development project aims to develop both new
teaching methods and learning materials for linguistically sensitive science
classes. The effort includes research on the effects of such products on teaching and learning. There are different goals that newly-developed lesson plans
that should attain:
1. The lesson plans should develop teaching methods and learning materials
for linguistically heterogeneous classes.
2. These lesson plans should help students to develop a linguistic basis for
learning and correctly employing scientific language without making
linguistic mistakes.
3. The lesson plans should aid teachers in supporting communication
between students by helping pupils express themselves in both proper
German and scientific language terminology, for example, mass instead
of weight.
4. The new lesson approach and learning materials developed should combine both content and language using Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) along with cooperative and autonomous learning.
From this initial starting point the main research question emerges:
To what extent it is possible to simultaneously learn scientific methods, terminology, content matter and the German language as the students work in
a cooperative, autonomous learning environment?
This project is based on the Participatory Action Research (PAR) method of

science education (Figure 3) (Eilks & Ralle, 2002). PAR is a joint effort between
teachers and science educators for curriculum development, educational
research, and classroom innovation. This allows different competencies to
meld together into new developments of teaching practices.
silvija markic
37
New concepts
and materials for
teaching
Knowledge about
teaching and
learning
Developed practice
Trained teachers
Development
of teaching
strategies and
media
Testing in
practice
Aims:
concepts and knowledge
for the development of
teaching practice
field of
teaching
practice
field of
teaching
practice
Development of concrete
practice by the research
process
Reflection and
revision
Knowledge about
learning processes
Documentation of
teaching practice
Evaluation
Teaching
experiences
Didactical and
methodological
reflections
Scientific
background and
its reduction
Teachers' intuition
and creativity
figure 3 par in science education
University
educators
science education
GSL-education
Science
teachers
German
as a second
language
teachers
figure 4 par group in the present project
38
Time
Activity
May 2010
analysis of relevant literature; collecting ideas for methods and

experiments; first provisional structuring
End of June 2010

(Meeting of the group)
presentation of the provisional lesson plan; negotiating and restructuring the

first part of the lesson plan; collecting ideas for structuring the second half
July to August 2010
revising the lesson plan
September to October 2010
testing of the lesson plan in two learning groups; observation of the lessons
by one university researcher and teacher self-reflection after each lesson
Mid of November 2010

reflection on first experiences with the whole group of teachers;

negotiating the test and students questionnaires
November to December 2010
testing occurs in another learning group; test and student questionnaires
Mid of December 2010

reflection in the whole group
January to June 2010
testing in another three learning groups occurs; test and student

questionnaires
table 1 development and evaluation
This paper describes the results of a group of eight Chemistry teachers and
three German as Second Language (GSL) teachers from different schools, who
collaborated with a university researcher (Figure 4). The group meets regularly every four to five weeks and has been developing lesson plans concerning CLIL for roughly four years. At the group meetings, changes in teaching
practices are proposed, negotiated, and refined so that the resulting structures can be tested and applied in classroom situations before being reflected
upon and improved.
Up to now six different lesson plans have been developed using this model.
The development and evaluation of two lesson plans called Matter and Its
Properties and Water will be presented in this paper as examples. Table 1
offers an overview of the development and evaluation process for the lesson
plan Matter and Its Properties.
Multidimensional triangulation was performed to arrive at an answer to
our research question. All of the groups that implemented the lesson plans
were continuously accompanied by and observed by university researchers,
who were actively developing the lesson plan. Furthermore, after each lesson
a self-reflection exercise (an interview by an observer from the university)
was completed by the teachers and recorded. These experiences were regularly discussed by the entire PAR group. Finally, students were asked to write
a short text based on their personal knowledge. This exercise was developed
silvija markic
39
by the teacher group, based on the teachers` own experiences and knowledge.
Additionally, a student feedback tool was collected, which combined an open
and a Likert questionnaire.
LE SSON PL A N E X A M PLE S
matter and its properties
The lesson plan Matter and its Properties occurs in two phases: (i) experimentation and (ii) exchange. In the first phase students are divided into two groups:
chemists and physicists. Both groups must work at stations and conduct experiments on the properties of matter. The chemists focus on the chemical properties
of matter and the physicists concentrate on physical properties. Both groups are
structured around a research folder containing helpful materials. The folder is
very similar in both cases. The first page lists all of the materials needed to carry
out the experiments. As a language aid, German vocabulary and definitions are
provided in the appendix, including pictures of the laboratory equipment with
the definite (der/die/das) and indefinite (einer/eine/ein) articles for German
masculine, feminine and neuter nouns in both the singular and plural forms.
This is important, since many German words undergo both spelling and pronunciation changes and/or receive new word endings in the plural form. Every
worksheet begins with a sentence describing the aim of that particular station.
Linguistic aids are offered for topics which the teachers in the group viewed as
necessary.
In the second phase, the original groups from the first phase are mixed to
form new groups. In this phase, two chemists and two physicists must work
together. Their job is to exchange the relevant knowledge which they individually discovered in their original role. They must also work cooperatively
to fill in an exercise book covering both topics.
The entire lesson plan is also supported by laminated Help Cards (different levels) and Solution Cards, both of which are available on the teachers
desk in case students reach an impasse.
water
This lesson plan is also divided into experimentation and exchange parts.
In the first phase students must work on a research folder which has been
40
constructed to cover the different properties of water. Similar to the previous lesson, the first page lists all the materials needed to carry out the
experiments. German vocabulary and definitions are also provided, as well
as the definite and indefinite articles for German masculine, feminine and
neuter nouns in both the singular and plural forms. Students must work in
groups of two in the learning at stations method. Every station is based on
a single experiment and contains exercises on the station topic. However,
each exercise aims at both repeating and building upon knowledge, while
simultaneously improving students German language proficiency. This is
why every exercise includes a short problem requiring practice in the German language. The experiments are mainly presented as a drawings or a
sequence of pictures. To acquire the necessary skills in writing a protocol,
pupils are aided by Help Cards at nearly every station. This allows students to actively decide whether or not they need help and what learning
level the help should take place.
In the second phase of the lesson plan, content matter from chemistry
and biology is combined. Students must work on their research folders again,
but now the method consists of think pair share. First, students are
required work on the characteristics of four different animals. Information
concerning important details for each animal is provided. The information is
specifically based on the properties of water, e.g. water striders using waters
surface tension to keep themselves afloat. After working out the details, the
learners must work on exercises inquiring into the characteristics of the different animals, and then combine this knowledge with the information on
the properties of water. These exercises are strongly linked to exercises in
the German language. In this phase students can rely on the Solution Cards
that are offered. It is important that the learners know that they can receive
aid, but that they are not forced to do so.
Different methods borrowed from German as a Second Language lessons
were employed in the lesson plans. From the vast available repertoire some
examples are (see for more in Markic, Broggy & Childs, 2013):

Simple phrasing (1-sentence constructions);

List of Vocabulary (with article, plural);
Words for helping to write observations and discussions;
Beginnings of sentences provided;
Connecting the parts of sentences;
silvija markic
41
Example sentences as thought provokers;

Drawings as explanations instead of words;
Cloze-sentences.
SA M PLE
The testing and evaluation phases were carried out using six learning groups
(grade 5; age range 10-11) with a total of 119 students for Matter and Its Properties. The lesson plan Water was tested in four classes (grade 5; age range
10-11) in different schools in the city-state of Bremen, Germany. All of the
schools who took part in the study are located in the suburbs of Bremen. This
is significant, since the residents in these areas tend to have both a lower
than average educational background and social class and generally include a
large percentage of people with migration backgrounds. Table 2 presents some
of the characteristics taken from the sample.
Table 2 makes it clear that many students come predominantly from migration backgrounds and that a very high percentage of students do not speak
the German language at home. Unfortunately, further information about students with a German background cannot be given. Some information about
the pupils competency in the German language could be provided by the science teachers in cooperation with their German language colleagues. The German students taking part in our study generally show poor German language
proficiency, particularly when it comes to expressing their own knowledge in
writing and creating proper sentences. They tend to come from families with
low levels of education.
Characteristic
Sex
Matter and its properties

(N=119)
Water
(N=93)
Female
72 (60.5%)
35 (38%)
Male
47 (39.5%)
58 (62%)
Students with a migration background
67 (56.8%)
63 (67%)
German not spoken as the home language
45 (37.8%)
56 (60%)
table 2 sample characteristics
42
R E SU LT S
The final knowledge test was pre-structured by the teachers according to their
personal teaching experiences. Scoring was based on the pre-structured pattern for evaluating the test. The majority of students passed the test successfully, thereby achieving scores higher than 50% of the total available points.
A high percentage of all student groups had scores of good or very good.
A total of 84% of the participants achieved more than 80% of the total points
possible. Such achievement was considered to be a quite remarkable factor by
the teachers.
When starting to develop the lesson plans, the teachers were very reluctant to use autonomous teaching strategies for students with language shortfalls. The teachers also expressed considerable fears about leaving pupils alone
in a cooperative learning environment, particularly because of the linguistic
issues faced by many students. This was not merely due to the specific scientific topics, but also because their learners would simultaneously have to deal
with difficulties arising from their deficient German language skills. Nevertheless, the teachers were open to experimentation when it came to applying
the scheme. After teaching and reflecting upon the lessons, the teachers attitudes towards teaching linguistically heterogeneous classes in cooperative,
autonomous lessons changed quite considerably. They were happy with the
end-product, with the openness of the lessons, and with the overall motivation of their students. This reaction consistently fits in with the feedback
given by the students. The learners judged the lessons to be remarkably good,
especially concerning aspects such as: help in verbalizing of their own ideas
and knowledge, the autonomy of learning, and structured cooperation and
communication. In particular, they mentioned that the materials had helped
them to better understand the topic both by themselves and within their
peer-group. During the lesson plan it was easy to observe that students were
proud of themselves and of their own work. They also agreed that their ability to express their own ideas and results in proper German had grown commensurately.
During the development process of the lesson plans, it was easy to observe
how the teachers directly influenced the learning process. They considered
the potential difficulties which they would encounter in the overall approach
and suggested appropriate corrective changes. Furthermore, the differing
competencies and experiences combined by teachers of science and GSL dursilvija markic
43
ing the process complemented one another. The teachers did not focus solely
on developing materials which increased the students` scientific knowledge.
Instead, they allowed the researchers to sufficiently address and undergird
additional factors. These included the simultaneous enhancement of the
learners German and scientific language skills while the pupils were actively
engaged in assimilating specific, scientific content knowledge. More details
about the studies are to be found in Markic (2011, 2012).
CONC LUSIONS A N D IM PLIC AT IONS

Although the knowledge test in the present study is limited in its scope in
terms of judging long-term learning effects, the short-term results provided
a good baseline for measuring whether students can understand topics on
their own. Students comprehension of topics includes their ability to express
themselves more easily and correctly in the German language. The initial
data seems very promising for implementation of further lesson plans and
units which combine the learning of scientific knowledge, German language
skills and cooperative learning methods.
Despite the process of collaborative development being new for both teachers and students, each group dealt with it in an autonomous fashion, aided
by the newly-created teaching materials and aids. This also held true for the
aspects focusing on teaching the German language and the teaching methods selected. The students were able to cooperatively manage the lesson plan,
despite initial doubts expressed by some of the teachers. The expectations of
the teachers, which had been recorded in a pre-structured test, were exceeded
by the pupils, most of whom achieved unexpectedly positive cognitive results.
Cooperative efforts between science and GSL teachers appear to provide
attractive possibilities for developing new teaching materials which support
linguistic heterogeneity in Chemistry lessons. Researchers also had a chance
to exchange their personal experiences with linguistic difficulties, their
knowledge of their students, and any pertinent interdisciplinary information, including methodologies. Furthermore, cooperation between experts
stemming from multiple disciplines offers a promising path for creating
motivating, highly attractive learning environments. This can bolster science
teachers as they attempt to aid their students in simultaneously mastering
both scientific content knowledge and German language skills.
44
After summing up the ideas above, our question still remains: If heterogeneity is viewed solely as an overwhelming challenge for science education,
can we ever move forward from the negatively-focused paradigm surrounding
such a viewpoint? This becomes especially relevant in light of the fact that
classroom heterogeneity will only become more pronounced in a globalizing
world, whether we recognize the problem or not, whether we like it or not,
and whether we adequately address the issue or not. In Germany, for example,
one person in five is either a foreigner or is a German national from a family
with a migration background. This fact will not simply go away. The modern
cultural and linguistic complexity in our schools will continue to increase,
regardless of which country you live in.
The above question is also of paramount importance, because the general
goal of education in many countries has been shifting increasingly towards
inclusion, which starts from the idea of diversity. Inclusion programs add
such factors as physical, emotional and mental disability, often severe psychological and behavioural problems, general learning difficulties such as
dyslexia, ADD, etc. to the mix. These factors will further combine with background linguistic issues to make the teaching and learning landscape in our
schools even more complex and unnavigable.
It is our belief that heterogeneity should not be ignored as a possible challenge to current teaching methods and practices. However, such heterogeneity can also serve as an opportunity and a catalyst to spur on educational
decisions and more effective classroom practices for the future. The project
described here shows that it is possible to view linguistic heterogeneity as a
negative challenge, if the definition in the opening paragraphs is selected.
However, the project also reveals that linguistic heterogeneity in science
classes can also serve as a door of opportunity in different ways. First of all,
poor linguistic skills can help science teachers to redefine the aim of their science lessons and to rethink their teaching materials. Furthermore, it offers
science teachers an opportunity to reflect on their own teaching behaviour
when it comes to teaching in a language-sensitive manner. This is very important for most teachers, since they (especially in the German context) tend to
be mainly monolingual. Different studies have focused on this point. In her
study, Moore (2007) interviewed three teachers. She came to the conclusion
that the teachers she interviewed were sensitive to the influence of language
on students` language. However, this was the case because interviewees were
all Native Americans who had experienced exactly the same thing during
silvija markic
45
their own time at school. The teachers in Moores study see language as a
barrier for students to learn and understand science. Studies from Cho and
Mc Donnough (2009) also support this. However, the science teachers in their
study were specially trained to teach English Language Learners (ELL).
The project also shows that the issues addressed by linguistic heterogeneity in the science classroom can (or to put it more provocatively should) be seen
as an opportunity to look past our own noses and see what is happening in
other teaching domains like linguistic science. The tools and methods which
are used in the above-mentioned lesson plans are not new for GSL teachers, but
they do represent largely uncharted territory for science teachers. This paper
shows that cooperation between science and language teaching provides us
with an opportunity to see what is happening in other teaching domains and
to adapt this knowledge for our own classrooms (compare also Verplaetse, 1998).
Finally, this project also reveals that dealing with linguistic heterogeneity in science classrooms can be an opportunity for continuous professional
development (CPD). As Mamlok-Naaman and Eilks (2012) have shown, the
Participatory Action Research method is good for promoting continuous professional development. The current study presented here supports this idea
and shows that collaboration between teaching colleagues is a good way for
science teachers to develop more sensitivity to their students` poor linguistic
skills, while simultaneously developing their own competencies for dealing
with this issue in their classes. On the other hand, the exchange cuts both
ways. This is also an opportunity for GSL teachers to gain insights into science lessons and to use this knowledge in language lessons by focusing on the
language of science.
R EF ER ENC E S
Cho, S., & McDonnough, J. T. (2009). Meeting the needs of high school science
teachers in English language learner instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 385-402.
Eilks, I., & Ralle, B. (2002) Participatory Action Research in chemical education. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Research in Chemical Education What does this
mean? (pp. 87-98). Aachen: Shaker.
Krell, G., Riedmller, B., Sieben, B., & Vinz, D. (2007). Einleitung Diversity
Studies als integrierende Forschungsrichtung. In G. Krell, B. Riedmller, B.
46
Sieben & D. Vinz (Eds.), Diversity Studies. Grundlagen und disziplinre Anstze (pp.
7-16). Frankfurt a. M., New York: Campus.
Lynch, S. (2001). Science for all is not equal to One size fits all: Linguistic
and cultural diversity and science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 622-627.
Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2012). Different types of Action Research to
promote chemistry teachers professional development A joined theoretical
reflection on two cases from Israel and Germany. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, 10(3), 581-610.
Markic, S. (2011). Lesson plans for student language heterogeneity while learning about matter and its properties. Paper presented at the 9th ESERA Conference, Lyon, FR. Retrieved from http://lsg.ucy.ac.cy/esera/e_book/base/ebook/
strand3/ebook-esera2011_MARKIC-03.pdf.
Markic, S. (2012). Lesson plans for students language heterogeneity while learning science. In S. Markic, D. di Fuccia, I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Heterogeneity
and Cultural Diversity in Science Education and Science Education Research (pp. 41-52).
Aachen: Shaker.
Markic, S., Broggy, J., & Childs, P. (2013). How to deal with linguistic issues in
the chemistry classroom. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching Chemistry A
studybook (pp. 127-152). Rotterdam: Sense.
Moore, F. M. (2007). Language in science education as a gatekeeper to learning,
teaching and professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
18, 319-343.
Sliwka, A. (2010). From homogeneity to diversity in German education. In OECD
(Ed.), Educating Teachers for Diversity: Meeting the Challenge (pp. 205-217). OECD Publishing.
Verplaetse, L. S. (1998). How content teachers interact with English language
learners. TESOL Quarterly, 7, 24-28.
*
silvija markic
47
chemistry teachers introduce high-school students

to advanced topics using a poster exhibition
of contemporary organic chemistry
Ron Blonder
ron.blonder@weizmann.ac.il | Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
Inga Meshulam
inga777@bezeqint.net | Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
abstract
The 21st century presents many challenges for chemistry educators. Chemistry as
an evolving entity is not reflected in the existing high-school chemistry curriculum.
The goal of the current study is to examine teachers perceptions regarding introducing advanced topics in chemistry for high-school students by using a poster
exhibition of contemporary organic chemistry. Four different groups of chemistry
teachers participated in the study. The groups differ in their Content Knowledge
(CK), and their experience in using the poster exhibition. The poster exhibition
served as an effective means of support for teachers when high-school students
were introduced to contemporary chemistry topics. CK was found to be an important component that positively influences teachers self-efficacy for using the
poster exhibition in their class. However, the teachers CK was insufficient; the
feelings of ownership and mastery experience are also important influential components that should be considered.
key words
Chemistry education; Professional development; Modern chemistry; Poster exhibition; Teacher knowledge; Ownership; Teaching efficacy.
SISYPHUS
volume 2, issue 2,
2014, pp.48-73
Chemistry Teachers Introduce

High-School Students to Advanced
Topics Using a Poster Exhibition of
Contemporary Organic Chemistry
Ron Blonder | Inga Meshulam
IN T RODUC T ION
Chemistry as an evolving entity is not reflected in the existing traditional
high-school chemistry curriculum. The existing curriculum usually presents
chemical concepts that were developed more than 100 years ago. However,
different attempts have been made to integrate contemporary scientific content and methods into high-school chemistry: (1) Advanced laboratories invite
classes of high-school students to use modern instrumentation (Blonder,
Mamlok-Naaman & Hofstein, 2008); (2) Scientists come to schools and lecture
about their research (Kapon, Ganiel & Eylon, 2009); (3) Science educators use
adapted research literature (Yarden, Brill & Falk, 2001). These three methods,
which are used for integrating contemporary chemistry (and science) into the
existing curriculum, represent the role of scientists: They perform experiments in their laboratory, and communicate their results at scientific conferences (lectures) and in scientific journals (articles). However, scientists also
use additional communication channels to present their research: scientific
posters. The poster is a visual means that is used to briefly present scientific
research at conferences (Stephen, 2011). The current study focuses on teachers content knowledge, which supports them in using poster exhibitions of
contemporary science in their classes.
49
The critical role of teachers in attaining the goal of quality education in

the sciences is highlighted in the research literature on education. A recent
international policy document written by Osborne and Dillon (2008) reflects
a consensus on the importance of teachers:
Good quality teachers with up-to-date knowledge and skills are the foundation of any system of formal science education. Systems to ensure the recruitment, retention, and continuous professional training of those individuals
must be a policy priority in Europe (Osborne & Dillon, 2008, p. 25).
The notion of teachers knowledge first came to prominence a quarter of a

century ago (Shulman, 1987), and there has been a plethora of literature on
what teachers know and do in order to carry out their work (Mulholland &
Wallace, 2005). By acknowledging the central role of teachers in teaching,
the teachers use of knowledge places the practicing teacher at the heart of
attempts to reform classrooms and improve student achievement. However,
although there is much agreement about the importance of teachers knowledge, there has also been numerous discussions, debates, and concerns regarding how teachers knowledge is constructed, organized, and used (Kennedy,
2002; Kind, 2009; Munby, Russell & Martin, 2001). Many teachers completed
their formal education a long time ago. As a result, their science knowledge
and knowledge of important recent developments regarding science teaching
(pedagogical knowledge and knowledge of new learning environments) are
rather limited. This inhibits their ability to implement curricula that require
contemporary scientific and pedagogical knowledge and to teach at an appropriate level and with the appropriate methodology (Van Driel, Verloop & De
Vos, 1998).
Research findings on the effectiveness and professional development of
teachers underscore the importance of teachers knowledge and professional
enthusiasm, as well as their pedagogical knowledge (Munby, Russell & Martin,
2001). What teachers know and how this knowledge distinguishes them from
other knowers of particular subjects was defined by Shulman (1986, p. 9) as
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), which goes beyond knowledge of the
subject matter to the dimension of subject matter knowledge for teaching.
Since then, PCK has come to be thought of as a special amalgam of subject matter knowledge and knowledge of pedagogy, long considered as separate, used
in a type of professional understanding unique to teachers (Shulman, 1987).
50
chemistry teachers introduce high-school students to advanced
In many respects, the work of Dewey (1902) foreshadowed the concept of PCK.
According to Dewey, teachers subject-matter knowledge differs from that of
other individuals. The teachers were concerned not with subject matter for its
own sake, as were other scholars, but rather, with subject matter as only one
part of the whole spectrum of educational experiences that a learner undergoes. So important has the notion of PCK become, that in more recent times,
researchers have called for subject matter knowledge to be taught to teachers
as PCK in order for teachers to more readily transform their own understandings, so that they are suitable for teaching (Marks, 1990). Researchers have
long debated the knowledge categories to be included as part of PCK and various definitions of it have evolved since Schulmans initial description (Van
Driel et al., 1998). However, the notion of PCK has come to epitomize the computer or the knowledge-based metaphor of teachers knowledge. In the two
ensuing decades since Schulmans early work, the knowledge base movement
has developed into a major effort to study the essential components comprising the knowledge base, and with the aim of determining how they affect it.
Lists of such knowledge types, clustered in different ways and with different
emphases, abound in the literature. They include content knowledge, general
pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of learners, knowledge of educational contexts, knowledge
of educational aims, purposes and values, and moral dispositions. However,
it is difficult to isolate specific elements of teachers knowledge in research
situations, because teachers have a holistic or integrated understanding of
their work (Loughran, Milroy, Berry, Gunstone & Mulhall, 2001). The concept of PCK, for example, has fuzzy boundaries, which presents a challenge
to those who attempt to add knowledge to its categories (Gess-Newsome, 1999).
One of the difficulties associated with making more use of PCK lies in its elusive nature. According to a recent review by Kind (2009), pedagogical content
knowledge is a hidden concept, although it is a useful construct, and determining what it comprises and using this knowledge to support good practice
in teacher education is not easy. Moreover, inconsistencies and disagreements
persist concerning PCK, resulting in no overriding consensus about how this
can best be used to describe effective science teaching. In Kuhns (1962) terms,
the PCK research field is still at the pre-science stage; therefore, despite having been researched for over twenty years, it is not ready for wider dissemination (Kind, 2009).
ron blonder | inga meshulam
51
OU R ST U DY
Based on the above, a program for enhancing chemistry teachers content
knowledge as well as their pedagogical content knowledge was initiated
at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. The Rothschild-Weizmann
Program for Excellence in Science Teaching was established for the academic and professional development of science and mathematics teachers
in Israel. A two-year program for earning a M.Sc. degree in science teaching was established within the Feinberg Graduate School at the Weizmann
Institute of Science.
The chemistry program consisted of three main topics: chemistry, science
education and laboratory experience. The chemistry courses were specifically
designed, and included three stages in which the teachers attended (1) the
course lectures, (2) a follow-up tutoring lesson, which was prepared especially for them by one of the staff scientists and was aimed at elaborating
on the course lecture, and (3) a workshop coordinated by a researcher from
the science teaching group, in order to apply the scientific knowledge to the
educational field (Mamlok-Naaman, Blonder & Hofstein, 2010). The model
reduced the teachers anxieties resulting from taking academic scientific
courses; they gained modern and advanced scientific content knowledge, and
succeeded in applying it in their teaching. The chemistry courses were chosen to represent advanced and modern chemistry topics that are associated
with the chemistry curriculum (e.g., medicinal chemistry, nanotechnology,
materials, advanced organic chemistry, and chemistry of proteins). The science education courses included issues such as an introduction to chemistry
education, inquiry-type teaching and learning, the diversity of assessment
methods, etc. In addition to the courses, a laboratory experience was scheduled for the summer vacation. Every chemistry teacher spent two weeks in
one of the laboratories, was involved in specific research, and wrote a report.
The teachers were also asked to suggest how the research, in which they were
involved, could be applied in their classes.
course description
In the current study we focused on the product of the third stage of the threestage model: adapting the scientific knowledge to the field of education in the
Organic reactions used in the total synthesis of natural products course.
52
The three-stage model in this course included the following stages:

Stage 1 Lecture: An advanced course in organic chemistry was given by
Prof. Hassner in the form of conventional lectures. The course was open
to M.Sc. students (the course was given three times at the Weizmann
Institute of Science) whose work focuses on organic synthesis as well as
to those chemistry teachers who were engaged in the M.Sc. program for
chemistry teachers. The lectures included oral explanations that were
taught together with organic chemistry equations that the lecturer wrote
on the blackboard. A written exercise was given after every lesson. The
evaluation of the course used a test that consisted of questions that were
similar to those that were given in the exercises.
Stage 2 Follow-up: a tutoring lesson was given after each lecture by an assistant staff scientist in the organic chemistry department of the Weizmann
Institute of Science. This lesson was given separately to the teachers; the
chemistry M.Sc. students had a different tutor.
Stage 3 Adaptation to education: This session was conducted by the author, a
researcher in the chemistry education group; she has a PhD in chemistry.
The emphasis of this session was on applications in two dimensions: applying the advanced chemistry content to the field of education, and using
the material to solve the exercises. Adaptation to education sessions was
carried out as workshops in which the students (the chemistry teachers)
usually worked in pairs and an educational guide aided their learning.
Assignment of stage 3 The assignment was changed for the three cohorts that
took the course. In the first cohort the teachers were asked to produce a poster
that presents one concept or one synthesis that they learned in the course,
which is appropriate for high-school students. As a result, seven posters were
designed and printed. The second cohort was asked to design an activity for
high-school students using the exhibition of the seven posters. The third cohort
was asked to design an activity and to use the poster exhibition in their class.
The posters in the poster exhibition are described in Table 1 (see next page).
poster preparation and poster components

The posters were part of the course assignments of the first cohort; each teacher
had to choose one of the course topics and to produce a poster. These posters were
53
Poster title
Advanced subject
matter
Basic concepts
Connections to
everyday life
-Lactam rings: the key
Staudinger reaction
Synthesis of -Lactam
Penicillin structure
Antibiotics and its role

in modern medicine
Carbocation equivalents
and the secret of the
orange smell
Acyl anion equivalents

Asymmetric reactions
Chirality
Fragrances
The connection between

retrosynthetic analysis
and the way detectives
solve crimes
Retrosynthetic analysis
of a complicated
example
Simple organic reactions
Crime Scene
Investigation (CSI),
reflective thinking
Mimicking nature using

chemistry
Robinson annulation
reaction
Chirality
Chemical ingredients
used by man
Hydroboration in serving Hydroboration

mankind
Alcohols and their

properties
Commercial medicines:
Ventoline, anti-cancer
treatment, antifungal
cream, and more
What is the connection

among organic
chemistry, umpolung,
and vitamin B12?
Acyl Anion Equivalent,

the Umpolung principle
Carbonyl group,
aldehydes, Krebs cycle
B12 Vitamin
Chemical dartboard
Directed aldols,
Asymmetric reactions,
protection groups
Functional group,
enolate inion,
nucleophilic addition
Mimicking nature by
chemical synthesis
for new antibiotics
table 1 description of the poster exhibition according to its components
intended to help them teach the specific topic to their high-school students. The
teachers were guided by the course tutor and by the educational guide regarding (1) choosing a topic, (2) finding a component that was connected to students
everyday life, and (3) integrating basic chemistry principles and concepts. The
teachers (the first cohort only) presented their posters to those colleagues who
participated in the program. Table 1 presents an analysis of the posters, showing
different parts: the advanced subject matter that they chose, the basic concepts,
and the connection to everyday life. The posters are shown in Figure 1.
research questions
Concerned with the lack of instructional materials for introducing cutting
edge chemistry to high-school students, we were interested in determining
whether this poster exhibition could be used by teachers other than those
who developed it. Therefore, we investigated the following research question:
54
1. What knowledge do teachers need in order to be able to use the poster

exhibition in their class?
2. What influences teachers self-efficacy beliefs regarding their ability to
use the poster exhibition that presents cutting-edge chemistry to high
students?
The study will focus on different components of teachers knowledge and

their beliefs regarding their ability to present the poster exhibition to highschool students.
figure 1 the seven posters in the poster exhibition,

presented in the same order as in table 1
M ET HODS
Participants: Four teacher groups participated in the study, as presented in Table
2. All the teachers in the study are experienced chemistry teachers (having more
than 10 years of experience). The first three groups of teachers were students
55
in the Rothschild-Weizmann Program for Excellence in Science Teaching. The

first cohort of teachers took the course and created the posters for the exhibition. The second cohort took the course and planned a student activity based
on the poster exhibition. The third cohort took the course, planned a student
activity, and performed it with their students. The last group includes leading
chemistry teachers with second degree in chemistry. Teachers in this group did
not participate in the course.
Teachers group
Number of teachers
Took the
advanced course
Created posters
Used the poster

exhibition
(1) First cohort
(2) Second cohort
18
(3) Third cohort
11
(4) Leading teachers
17
table 2 characterizations of the different groups of teachers
data collection and analysis

Teacher Interview
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the first cohort of teachers
(group 1) at the end of the year. The interviews (60 min each) included two parts
(Fontana & Frey, 1998). In the first part they were requested to freely describe
how they apply their academic learning. The second part was semi-structured
and guided the teachers to focus on and to express their opinion regarding the
poster exhibition that they created. This part included the following questions:
Do you plan to use the organic poster exhibition with your students?
Please explain.
What support do you need in order to use the exhibition in your class?
In your opinion, what could the students gain from this kind of activity?
The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and then analysed by the

first author of this paper according to three main categories that emerged from
the teachers interviews: (1) their feelings towards the poster exhibition, (2)
their perceptions regarding the content of the poster, and (3) their perceptions
regarding using the exhibition in their classroom. The initial analysis was fol56
lowed by a secondary analysis conducted by an expert in science education

research who re-read the interview transcription and commented on unclear
category attribution. Then, the two researchers discussed the results until they
reached a consensus. Interviews were analysed to determine the extent to
which the teachers planned to implement the poster exhibition in their chemistry lessons. Finally, those factors that influenced their plans were identified.
Reflective Report
The assignment that was given to the teachers in cohorts 2 and 3 (groups 2
and 3) was to develop an activity in which they will implement the poster
exhibition in the chemistry lessons. Group 2 was only requested to design the
activity, whereas group 3 was requested to design an activity and to try it out
in class. Teachers in the two groups were requested to describe the activities
that were developed and to identify the following:
The goals of the designed activity
The pro and cons of using the poster exhibition with high-school students
If they plan to use the poster exhibition and try your activity with your
students next year
Teachers in group 3 that tried the activity in class as part of the course assignment were also asked to evaluate the success of their activity and to bring
evidence to evaluate its success.
The three categories that emerged in the interviews were used to analyse
the reflective reports.
Questionnaires
One of the teachers from the first cohort (the second author) designed an
activity based on the poster exhibition for her students. A group of 17 leading chemistry teachers (group 4) were invited to participate and learn about
this activity. This activity lasted two academic hours and included a guided
reading of the posters, which were hung on the wall of the classroom. Then
the leading teachers were requested to choose one of the posters and to
deepen their understanding by following a students work sheet. After the
activity, the leading teachers were asked to fill out a questionnaire. In the
questionnaire they were asked to describe their professional background
and to answer the following questions:
57
Did you find the poster exhibition activity to be interesting for you as a
learner?
Would you like to introduce this activity to your students? Please explain.
What are the pitfalls of such an activity?
What are the advantages of introducing high-school students to the poster
exhibition?
In addition, the questionnaires were analysed according to the categories that

emerged from the interviews.
Follow-up Short Interview
All the teachers from the four groups were interviewed one year after the
third cohort completed the MSc program. The 30-minute short interviews
were audio-recorded and transcribed. The goal of the follow-up interview was
to learn whether the teachers actually used the poster exhibition in their
class. The teachers were first asked to describe their feelings and what they
have done in school since the last time that they have been at the Weizmann
Institute of Science. Then they were asked if they made use of the poster exhibition as they had planned. These interviews were used for collecting technical information and therefore inter-rater validity was not required.
R E SU LT S
The results will be presented according to the different teacher groups in
order to identify differences between teachers knowledge and beliefs.
the first cohort

The teachers in this group took the advanced organic course and designed the
posters in the adaptation to education stage of the course.
(1) Teachers Feelings Towards the Poster Exhibition

Most of the teachers in this group exhibited positive attitudes towards the
poster. They created the posters, they are very familiar with them, and they
even like them, as reflected from the following examples:
58
One of the activities I plan to do with my students next year is to use the
poster exhibition. I am familiar with the posters
I really like the posters they are really good considering their content and
their design.
The colours of the posters make the exhibition very attractive and I love to
see them all together creating a rainbow.
I worked very hard to prepare my poster and the result is beautiful. Actually,
I think that all the posters are great and very appealing for students.
A question regarding teachers feelings or attitudes towards the poster was

not asked directly in the interview. However, only two teachers did not reveal
their feelings towards the posters, whereas the others described positive feelings. In addition, the teachers expressed their sense of ownership regarding
their own poster and even regarding the entire poster exhibition.
(2) Teachers Perceptions Regarding the Content of the Poster
The teachers described different components of the posters content. They
discussed the advanced organic content that was derived from the advanced
course; they referred to the connection to students lives and also discussed
the pictures in the posters, as shown in the following examples:
They [the posters] give the students access to cutting-edge science that are
outside the chemistry curriculum and connect this advanced knowledge to
their everyday life.
Im not afraid of the high level of the posters. On the contrary, students will
learn some of the content. They will know parts are too high for me I need
to learn more chemistry in order to understand them all.
We had chosen photos of familiar objects (like the grapefruit) to explain
chemistry concepts like enantiomers. We integrated examples from students
everyday life to connect them to the posters.
Although the advanced organic-chemistry concepts that are presented in the
59
posters are very complex, I understand them well and therefore will be able
to mention them to my students.
(3) Teachers Perceptions Regarding Use of the Exhibition in their Classroom

The teachers were directly asked if they plan to use the poster exhibition in
their class, and therefore all of them referred to this aspect:
Next year I will use the poster exhibition. I really like to do the activity with
them. I will just need to receive them and Ill do the activity.
There is no doubt about that I am going to use the poster with my students.
One of the activities I plan to do with my students next year is to use the
poster exhibition. I know the posters () The poster exhibition will introduce the students to the methodology of using posters for scientific communication whereby scientific knowledge is succinctly presented.
I plan to use them when Ill teach functional groups because their content
is connected to this chemistry content. They give the students access to cutting-edge science that is outside the chemistry curriculum and it links this
advanced knowledge to their everyday life.
I really like the posters they are really good, considering their content and
their design. I plan to use them when Ill teach functional groups because
their content is connected to this chemistry content.
Only one teacher explained why she did not plan to use the posters with her
class, as indicated in Table 3:
I am not sure that Ill bring the poster exhibition to my class. My students are
not so strong and usually I dont have time for enrichment.
Four teachers from the first cohort actually took the printed posters and used
the exhibition in their class (Table 3). These four teachers stated in the followup interviews that they plan to use the poster exhibition again.
60
Teachers group
Planning to use the

poster exhibition
Actually used the poster

exhibition
Stated that they will reuse the poster exhibition
First cohort
6/7
4/7
4/4
Second cohort
10/18
2/18
2/2
Third cohort
8/11
8/11
6/8
Leading teachers
5/17
0/17
table 3 implementation of the poster exhibition: plans and actual use
the second cohort

Teachers from the second cohort took the advanced chemistry course and were
also asked to design an activity for their students using the poster exhibition.
Ten out of the 18 teachers in the group stated in the interview that they will
use the exhibition but only two teachers actually did so, as presented in Table 2.
The teacher found the exhibition to be very aesthetic but did not reveal any
personal connection to the posters, as indicated from the following examples:
I think that the posters are very beautiful.
The design of the exhibition is appealing; together the posters create a rainbow of colours.
The teachers who chose to express their feelings regarding the posters
described them as a group. They did not express any sense of ownership but
rather, related to the way the poster exhibition is designed.
For most of the teachers the content of the poster seemed to be highly complex
and very difficult for high-school students. They stated that even for them the
advanced course was very difficult and they could not distinguish between
the advanced course and the poster exhibition, as indicated from the following examples:
It was very difficult for me to develop an activity for my students using
the poster exhibition. The advanced course was not easy for me, although
61
I received a high score, and I almost cant imagine an activity using these
materials that will be suitable for high-school students.
The posters, which expose the students to high-level chemistry, emphasize
the organic synthesis and the chemical industry. The connection of the
advanced content to students everyday life is prominent.
About half of the teachers in this group saw mainly the advanced organic
content, which is included in the posters. The other half related to the additional components of the posters (e.g., their connection to students life, their
connections to industry) and were less threated by the content of the posters.
(3) Teachers Perceptions Regarding Use of the Exhibition in their Classroom
The teachers could be categorized into two groups, regarding their perceptions
of the content of the poster. Those teachers who mainly noted the difficult
content had difficulties in explaining why they would not be able to use the
poster exhibition in their class. In contrast, those teachers who emphasized
other components of the poster content described the advantages of using the
poster with their students, as reflected in the following examples:
Usually I dont have time for enrichments and this activity will take a lot
of time because the posters are so difficult to understand.
It was very difficult for me to develop an activity for my students using the
poster exhibition () I dont believe that the activity can work well with my
students because the posters are too difficult.
Bringing the poster exhibition to my class and doing the activity I prepared
creates a unique opportunity to show my students the cutting edge of scientific
research, and it shows them the connections to their life and to industry.
There is no chance that will not do the activity. It is a great opportunity for
me to share what I learned in my MSc degree and to introduce the advanced
content in such a way that students will understand.
62
the third cohort

Teachers from the third cohort that took the advanced chemistry course were
asked to design an activity using the poster exhibition and to pilot the activity in their class. Ten out of the 11 teachers in the group used the exhibition (it
was the course assignment for this group), and most of them stated that they
planned to reuse the poster exhibition.
After developing and piloting the students activity in class, the teachers
developed positive feelings and attitudes towards the posters, as was indicated in their reflective reports:
The posters are so beautiful; actually I discovered this when I worked on my
assignment and had to look carefully at the poster.
I cant find any pitfalls in the posters they are great. Each poster presents
a different work in the cutting edge of organic chemistry and connects it to
students life and also shows the students that there is still what to discover.
However, three teachers in this group asked not to pilot their activity in class,
since they taught middle-school students the same year and not high-school
students for whom the posters were designed. These teachers received the
same assignment like the first cohort of teachers, namely, to design a poster.
This poster was designed but was never printed and therefore was not part of
the poster exhibition. The third teacher received the assignment of the second cohort, namely, to design an activity for her students without piloting it
in school. The two teachers had negative attitudes towards the posters. They
felt the assignment was not relevant for them and was very demanding, as
reflected from the report they submitted with the poster:
I dont think that these posters can be really used in school. They are much
too difficult and I dont think that young students will be connected to them,
since even I cant learn from them.
63

The teachers could distinguish between the high level of the advanced course
and the content of the posters. They highlighted the ways in which the posters aid high-school students to learn the difficult organic chemistry content:
The organic chemistry course was the most difficult course for me the
poster gave me an opportunity to rebuild my confidence. I like organic chemistry after all.
The posters are not so complex as the course; they expose the beauty of new
developments in chemistry research.
The poster exhibition shows the connection between real life and advanced
organic chemistry the posters are appealing for students and for me too.
(3) Teachers Perceptions Regarding Using the Exhibition in their Classroom

The teachers in this group actually used the poster exhibition in their classes.
Therefore, their perception regarding use of the posters is based on reflective evaluation of their activity. The three teachers who did not complete the
assignment explained that the posters were too difficult for their students
and that they lacked time to include in their teaching an activity that is outside the chemistry curriculum. Most of the teachers who used the posters
in their class were very surprised by the success of the activity, as indicated
from the following examples:
The pedagogy is really student-centred; they could choose the poster they
want to focus on and they dont have many opportunities like this in school.
I was amazed by my students reactions they were so enthusiastic and cooperative. There is no doubt that that Im going to do that again next year!
My students really liked the posters. They read them carefully and asked me
a lot of questions regarding them.
I was sceptical, because I thought they are too difficult for them. But they
[my students] were very interested in them. First, they looked at the exam64
ples that were connected to their life, and then they started to surf the internet to lean new concepts. I was very surprised.
leading teachers
Teachers from this group did not take the advanced chemistry course; however, they all hold at least an MSc in Chemistry and therefore they had taken
an advanced course in organic chemistry. They were exposed to the poster
exhibition and a workshop for leading chemistry teachers. In the workshop
they performed the activity that was designed by the second author (as learners) and were asked to fill out a questionnaire. Five out of the 17 teachers in
the group thought that they will use the exhibition. They were not asked
about their feelings towards the poster exhibition because this category
emerged from analysing teachers interviews only after they had completed
the activity. Therefore, we do not have direct evidence regarding their feelings and of their sense of ownership regarding the posters.
The leading teachers indicated that they learned a lot from the activity. They
learned new directions in organic synthesis, and found new connections to
everyday life and industry.
My knowledge regarding organic synthesis stopped ten years ago when I finished my MSc degree in chemistry. The poster exhibition provided me with
the opportunity to learn new developments in the field.
I know that chemistry is everywhere and I also tell that to my students, but
I never realized that even organic chemistry is so connected to everyday life;
for me it was always an area that stays in the laboratory.
It was not easy for me to fully understand the advanced content I need
more time for that.
(2) Teachers perceptions regarding use of the exhibition in their classroom

The teachers were asked whether they like to introduce this activity to their
students and to describe the pitfalls and the advantages of such an activity.
65
Most of them referred to the advanced organic chemistry content, which would
be too difficult for their students, as the main reason for not using the activity
in class. The content knowledge of this group of teachers, who had not taken
the advanced course, was lower than that of the teachers in the other groups.
I liked the activity but it was not easy; I think that my students cant do that.
This is too hard for high-school students.
I dont have time for enrichments; I must prepare them for the external
exams.
However, the leading teachers are very experienced teachers and were
impressed by the pedagogy underlying the poster exhibition.
The poster exhibition uses a pedagogy that put the student in the centre of
the learning. The student will feel like he is at a scientific conference in
which the researchers can choose which poster to read.
I can imagine myself using the posters with my students in an activity that
will summarize functional groups in organic chemistry. They dont have to
fully understand all the details in the posters. They will the opportunity to
see how organic chemistry in connected to everyday life.
DISC USSION
The discussion is based on integrating the results from the different research
tools consisting of (1) interviews with teachers, (2) a reflective report, (3) a
questionnaire, and (4) follow-up short interviews conducted a year after the
end of the course. The discussion will be presented according to each research
question.
(1) What knowledge do teachers need in order to be able to use the poster exhibition in
their class?
Only five teachers from the leading teachers group wrote in the questionnaire
that they planned to use the poster exhibition with their students. In contrast
66
to the teachers from the first three cohorts, who took the advanced organic
course, the leading teachers indicated that their previous knowledge was not
enough to completely understand the posters content. Moreover, none of the
leading teachers actually used the posters. This supports the notion that teachers content knowledge is a necessary condition to introduce the poster exhibition activity to the class. When Shulman (1986) distinguished three kinds
of knowledge that lie at the heart of the teaching profession, he started with
subject knowledge content knowledge: the amount and organization of knowledge per se in the mind of the teacher (Shulman, 1986, p. 10). Shulman continued and emphasized that The teacher needs not only [to] understand that
something is so; the teacher must further understand why something is so
(Shulman, 1986, p. 9), namely, the content and its context. The leading teachers
did not know the content of the poster exhibition and a fortiori they did not
know the context of the advanced knowledge. It is therefore reasonable that
lacking the relevant content knowledge, the teachers did not feel capable of
using the poster exhibition in their class. There are many evidences that show
the relationship between the teachers subject knowledge and their attempts
at implementing this knowledge in their lessons (e.g., Smith & Neale, 1989).
Ball, Hoover, and Geoffrey (2008) distinguished between pure content
knowledge unique to the task of teaching and specialized content knowledge,
which is distinct from the common content knowledge needed by teachers
and non-teachers alike. Therefore, pure content knowledge is not enough.
Not all the teachers who took the advanced course felt they could handle this
activity with their students. Teachers interviews and their reflective reports
indicated that the third group who designed an activity for their students
and piloted it in school was the group that adopted the activity at a higher
percentage rate than the other groups, even after the course. A more careful
look at the results shows that teachers from all groups who tried the activity once (voluntary or obligatory) repeated it again. The knowledge that they
developed while piloting the activity was an important factor that influenced
them to use the poster exhibition again. Examining what they said and wrote
after the activity revealed that they emphasized their success in using this
pedagogical technique and the ways to connect the activity to the chemistry curriculum (namely, pedagogical knowledge and curriculum knowledge)
(Shulman, 1986).
Although advanced and modern scientific contents and their technological applications are appealing and have the potential to positively influence
67
and motivate students to enrol in science courses, they are absent from most
high-school curricula, mainly because of the hierarchical nature of science
(Kapon et al., 2009). If one wishes to incorporate contemporary science contents, such as the content in the poster exhibition, into high-school science
lessons, one must develop a teaching pedagogy that can bridge the gap between
students pre-knowledge and the advanced content. The poster exhibition provides an opportunity to use student-centred pedagogy that is rarely used in
high-school chemistry teaching (Blonder & Dinur, 2011). The concept of student-centred learning has been credited to Deweys work (Dewey, 1902). Carl
Rogers, the father of client-centred counselling, is associated with expanding this approach into a general theory of education. In his book Freedom to
Learn for the 80s (Rogers, 1983), he described the shift in power from the expert
teacher to the student learner, driven by a need for a change in the traditional environment where in this so-called educational atmosphere, students
become passive, apathetic, and bored. The student-centred approach is based
on the hypothesis that students who are given the freedom to explore areas
based on their personal interests, and who are accompanied in their striving for solutions by a supportive, understanding facilitator, not only achieve
higher academic results but also experience increased personal values, such
as flexibility, self-confidence, and social skills. This approach also allows the
students to have a free choice (Jenkins, 2006). They can choose the poster
they would like to learn more about an element that is rarely found in a
school learning situation. The combination of advanced content knowledge
and teachers beliefs will support the teachers in using this unique poster
exhibition in class (Blonder, Benny & Jones, 2014), as will be discussed in the
second research question.
(2) What influenced teachers self-efficacy beliefs regarding their ability to use the poster
exhibition, which presents cutting-edge chemistry in class?
We found that teachers who developed a sense of ownership regarding the
poster exhibition (the first cohort) or to the activity they introduced to their
class (mainly cohort three) were most likely to use the poster exhibition. One
conclusion that arose from decades of studying the success and failure of a
wide variety of curriculum innovations is that imposed innovations are generally ineffective (Pint, 2005), and that innovations succeed when teachers
feel a sense of ownership of the innovation, or that it belongs to them and
that it is not simply imposed on them (Ogborn, 2002). Pint, Couso, and Guti68
rrez (2005) also insisted that only if teachers feel some sense of ownership of
an innovation, will they effectively carry it out in the classroom. Although
a sense of ownership plays a central role in education and in teachers professional development, not many studies have dealt with this issue. A study
that followed the adaptation of European modules to the context of chemistry
teaching was conducted in Israel (Blonder, Mamlok-Naaman, Kipnis & Hofstein, 2008). It was found that when the teachers were involved in developing
or adapting the teaching program, they developed a high sense of ownership
toward the program as well as positive attitudes. These results are correlated
with our results. The teachers that were involved in developing the posters
(the learning materials) or the in designing the activity with the poster exhibition developed a high sense of ownership.
However, we found a difference between the second cohort and the
third cohort, although both groups developed a poster-exhibition-activity
for their class. The third cohort, which was asked to pilot the activity in
their class, exhibited a higher sense of ownership, more positive attitudes,
and repeated the activity even when it was not part of the course requirements. One of the components for teachers (especially in implementing new
activities) is teaching self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). Teachers self-efficacy
was found to contribute to their development and sustainable changes
(reference). The contribution of teachers attitudes and more specifically,
teachers self-efficacy to changes in their teaching emerged in their first
interview. Therefore, we looked for indications of teachers self-efficacy in
the follow-up interviews.
In the cyclic model for teaching-efficacy, Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk,
Hoy, and Hoy (1998) emphasized that the major factors that influence selfefficacy beliefs are cognitive interpretations of the four sources of efficacy
information (namely, mastery experiences, vicarious experience, verbal
and social persuasion, and emotional and physiological states). In the current study, the third cohort of teachers experienced the first source (mastery
experience), which is known to be the most influential source for developing
efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1994; Usher & Pajares, 2008) of information, as was
mentioned in the interviews. In addition, the teachers were asked to evaluate
their teaching reflectively (in the reflective report). We would like to stress
that the reflective evaluation process that the teachers underwent provides
a mechanism for cognitive interpretations of the sources of efficacy information. Therefore, it supported the development of high self-efficacy beliefs.
69
It is therefore important to provide teachers with opportunities to develop

their efficacy beliefs as well as their knowledge if one wants to introduce
to schools innovative teaching materials and especially advanced up-to-date
subject content.
CONC LUSIONS
The current paper presents a unique method for teaching up-to-date subject
content in school science by using a poster exhibition that was designed by
the teachers. The poster is a visual means that is used to briefly present scientific research at conferences (Stephen, 2011), and scientists also use the poster
as a means of communicating their research. It was found that teachers were
able to implement the poster exhibition in their classes and were able introduce their high-school students to cutting-edge organic chemistry. However,
not all the teachers, who differ in knowledge and efficacy beliefs, actually
used the poster exhibition.
The current study focuses on teachers knowledge and beliefs that supported them in using the poster exhibition of up-to-date science in their
classes. It was found that the first component that teachers need in order to
introduce the poster exhibition is content knowledge (CK). Teachers (leading
teachers) who lacked adequate CK found the poster exhibition to be an interesting learning experience for themselves but they did not use them in their
classes. The pedagogical knowledge that accompanies the poster exhibition,
namely, student-centred pedagogy was found to be less influential.
Teachers sense of ownership and their self-efficacy beliefs were also found
to be influential factors. Teachers who developed a sense of ownership during
the process of designing the posters or when developing the activity for their
students and piloting it in class had a higher sense of ownership towards the
poster exhibition and were more likely to reuse the posters in class the next year.
AC K NOW LED GM EN T S
We would like to thank the Rothschild-Caesarea Foundation for supporting
the Rothschild-Weizmann program for Excellence in Science Teaching.
70
R EF ER ENC E S
Ball, D. L., Hoover, T. M., & Geoffrey, P. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407. doi:
10.1177/0022487108324554.
Bandura, A. (1986). The Explanatory and Predictive Scope of Self-Efficacy
Theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Blonder, R., Benny, N., & Jones, M. G. (2014). Teaching self-efficacy of science
teachers. In R. H. Evans, C. Czerniak & J. Luft (Eds.), The role of science teachers
beliefs in international classrooms: From teacher actions to student learning (in press).
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Blonder, R., & Dinur, M. (2011). Teaching nanotechnology using student-centered pedagogy for increasing students continuing motivation. Journal of Nano
Education, 3(1-2), 51-61. doi: 10.1166/jne.2011.1016.
Blonder, R., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Hofstein, A. (2008). Analyzing inquiry
questions of high-school students in a gas chromatography open-ended laboratory experiment. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 250-258. doi:
10.1039/B812414K.
Blonder, R., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008).
Increasing science teachers ownership through the adaptation of the PARSEL modules: A bottom-up approach. Science Education International, 19(3),
285-301.
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1998). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp.
47-78). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and
orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3-17). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Jenkins, E. W. (2006). The student voice and school science education. Studies in
Science Education, 42, 49-88.
Kapon, S., Ganiel, U., & Eylon, B.-S. (2009). Scientific argumentation in public
physics lectures: bringing contemporary physics into high-school teaching.
Physics Education, 44(1), 33. doi: doi:10.1088/0031-9120/44/1/004.
71
Kennedy, M. M. (2002). Knowledge and teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and
Practice, 8(3/4), 355-370.
Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169-204.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Loughran, J., Milroy, P., Berry, A., Gunstone, R., & Mulhall, P. (2001).
Documenting science teachers pedagogical content knowledge through PaPeRs. Research in Science Education, 31(2), 289-307.
Mamlok-Naaman, R., Blonder, R., & Hofstein, A. (2010). Providing chemistry teachers with opportunities to enhance their knowledge in contemporary
scientific areas: A three-stage model. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,
11, 241-252. doi: 10.1039/C0RP90005B.
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a
modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3-11.
Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2005). Growing the tree of teacher knowledge:
Ten years of learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 42(7), 767-790.
Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers knowledge and how
it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp.
877-904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Ogborn, J. (2002). Ownership and transformation: Teachers using curriculum
innovations. Physics Education, 37(2), 142-146.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation.
Pint, R. (2005). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying
teachers transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science
Education, 89, 1-12.
Pint, R., Couso, D., & Gutirrez, R. (2005). Using research on teachers transformations of innovations to inform teacher education: The case of energy
degradation. Science Education, 89, 38-55.
Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80s. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Company.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching.
Educ. Researcher, 15, 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educ. Rev., 57, 1-22.
72
Smith, D. C., & Neale, D. C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(1), 1-20. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(89)90015-2.
Stephen, K. R. (2011). Posters in the Pacific. C&EN: Science & Technology, 89(2), 35.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk, A., Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher
efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical
review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research,
78, 751-796. doi: 10.3102/0034654308321456.
Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6),
673-695.
Yarden, A., Brill, G., & Falk, H. (2001). Primary literature as a basis for a highschool biology curriculum. Journal of Biological Education, 35, 190195.
*
73
the characteristics of open-ended inquiry-type chemistry

experiments that enable argumentative discourse
Dvora Katchevich
dvora.katchevitch@weizmann.ac.il | Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
Rachel Mamlok-Naaman
rachel.mamlok@weizmann.ac.il | Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
Avi Hofstein
avi.hofstein@weizmann.ac.il | Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
abstract
One of the key goals of science education is to provide students with the ability
to construct arguments reasoning and thinking critically in a scientific context.
Over the years, many studies have been conducted on constructing arguments in
science teaching, but only a few of them have dealt with studying argumentation
in the science laboratory in general and in the chemistry laboratory in particular.
Our research focuses on the process in which students construct arguments in the
chemistry laboratory while conducting different types of inquiry experiments. The
experiments that were assessed for their argumentation level differed in their level
of complexity. It was found that the more complex experiments served as a better
platform for developing arguments as well as regarding their relative numbers.
Moreover, we identified a number of characteristics during the discourse that
serve as a catalyst for raising arguments: asking questions and unexpected results
obtained in the experiments.
key words
Argumentation; Chemistry laboratory; High-order learning skills; Inquiry-type
experiment; Complexity of inquiry-type experiments.
SISYPHUS
volume 2, issue 2,
2014, pp.74-99
The Characteristics of Open-Ended

Inquiry-Type Chemistry Experiments
that Enable Argumentative Discourse
Dvora Katchevich | Rachel Mamlok-Naaman | Avi Hofstein
T H EOR ET IC A L BAC KGROU N D

Learning science in a laboratory has a number of features that have contributed to establishing its centrality in the learning and teaching of science in
general and chemistry in particular (Hodson, 1993; Hofstein & Kind, 2012;
Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Lazarowitz & Tamir, 1994; Lunetta, 1998; Lunetta,
Hofstein & Clough, 2007). Clearly, the science laboratory, if structured properly, has the potential to develop many important high-order learning skills
(Hofstein, Navon, Kipnis & Mamlok-Naaman, 2005; Katchevich, Hofstein &
Mamlok-Naaman, 2013; Kipnis & Hofstein, 2008; Tobin, 1990) such as asking questions, developing critical thinking, problem-solving, and developing
metacognitive and argumentation skills (Hofstein & Kind, 2012). It provides a
unique opportunity to collaborate, deliberate, and communicate with peers.
In a nutshell, it provides an opportunity to learn science by doing hands-on
as well as minds-on science.
Over the years, the educational effectiveness of science laboratories as a
unique learning environment that enables meaningful student learning has
been emphasized in many research studies (see, for example, Abrahams &
Millar, 2008; Hodson, 1993; Lazarowitz & Tamir, 1994; Lunetta et al., 2007;
McElhaney & Linn, 2011). Moreover, the laboratory provides support for
75
high-order learning inquiry skills that include observing, planning an experiment, asking relevant questions, hypothesizing, and analysing the experimental results (Bybee, 2000; Hofstein, Shore & Kipnis, 2004).
In this paper we define science laboratory activities as learning experiences in which students interact with materials to observe and better understand the natural world. Note that assessing the educational effectiveness of
the laboratory and its related learning skills requires distinguishing between
the different modes of instruction, namely, the nature of the experiments in
which the students are involved. Laboratory experiments can be classified
into four types: confirmatory, inquiry (various types such as guided inquiry
and open-ended type inquiry that can differ in their degree of complexity;
see for example, Hofstein & Kind, 2012), discovery, teachers demonstrations,
and conducting an experiment around a specific problem.
In this paper we will focus solely on the issue related to the degree of complexity of inquiry-type experiments. Domin (1999) suggested criteria to define
experiments according to the type of results obtained from the experiment: the
inductive vs. deductive approach to the activity and, according to who wrote the
procedure, either the teacher or the student who must perform the experiment.
Other researchers (Fradd, Lee, Sutman & Saxton, 2001; Herron, 1971; Schwab,
1962) suggested characterizing experiments according to their degree of openendedness. Open in this sense means that the experiment is performed entirely
by the student and closed means that it is performed entirely by the teacher
(e.g., a demonstration). A confirmatory experiment is considered closed when
the students, after learning in the science classroom, perform an experiment
that is planned by the teacher. Its approach is deductive and the results of the
experiment are known to both the teacher and students in advance. In contrast, an inquiry experiment is considered open when the students plan how
it will be carried out. Its approach is inductive and the results are not known in
advance to the students and sometimes to the teacher. For a more comprehensive discussion regarding this issue see Hofstein, Kipnis and Abrahams (2013).
A RGUM EN TAT ION IN T H E CON T E X T

OF T E AC HING A ND LE A R NING SC IENC E
One of the goals of science education is to provide students with the ability to formulate arguments reasoning and critiquing in a scientific context. Progress in
76
the characteristics of open-ended inquiry-type chemistry experiments
science is partially based on arguments and their related rebuttal. Formulating

arguments is a particular genre of discourse in which a central epistemological
framework is formed as a result of scientific actions. Upon examining the type
of activities, it was found that formulating arguments is central and significant
in developing and conducting science activities. Consequently, it is reasonable
to assume that imparting the meaning of scientific content and the essence of
developing a scientific concept would be a way to formulate arguments (Erduran,
Simon & Osborne, 2004; Hofstein & Kind, 2012; Hofstein, Kipnis & Kind, 2008).
Scientific language is based on arguments; therefore, students should be provided with opportunities to talk science (Lemke, 1990). We believe that argumentation in a scientific context should be an integral part of this process. In
a classical science lesson teachers ask questions, expect certain answers, and
immediately evaluate the students replies (Cazden, 2001). In contrast, working
in small groups, in which the members are exposed to scientific tasks, provides
them with an opportunity to become involved in a debate and to be supported
or rejected by their arguments. During a group debate, sometimes with the
teachers intervention, the group has an opportunity to construct individual as
well as group knowledge. Formulating knowledge in this manner is an example of constructivist socio-cultural knowledge, as described by Vygotsky (1978).
According to Jimnez-Aleixandre (2008), the characteristics of an optimal
learning environment for constructing arguments that relate to students, teachers, curriculum, assessment, reflection, and communication are as follows: (1)
the students must be active in the learning process; they must assess knowledge,
establish their claims, and be critical of others; (2) the teachers have to adopt to
student-centred learning, act as a role model regarding the way they verify
their claims, support the development of understanding the nature of knowledge among students, and adopt learning strategies such as inquiry; (3) the
curriculum should incorporate an authentic problem-solving approach, which
will require the students to learn by inquiry; (4) students and teachers should
be skilled in assessing claims, and assessing the students should go beyond
written tests; (5) the students should be reflective about their knowledge and
understand how it was acquired, and finally (6) the students should have an
opportunity to conduct a dialogue in which cooperative learning will take
place. Combining these six elements encourages the implementation of an
argumentative, interactive learning environment.
From a cognitive perspective, formulating an argument is a conceptual
process that can aid in developing an understanding of these concepts.
dvora katchevich | rachel mamlok-naaman | avi hofstein
77
Furthermore, the skill of reasoning, which requires creating a link between

claims and evidence, is developed (Osborne, 2010). In general, students often
have difficulty in formulating arguments; they also have difficulty in selecting and connecting findings that can be used as evidence in supporting their
claims (Sandoval & Millwood, 2005). Furthermore, students do not formulate
high-level arguments on their own. It is therefore necessary to initiate activities that encourage and support formulating arguments, especially with
controversial-type activities that have diverse types of solutions (Andriessen & Schwarz, 2009; Duschl & Osborne, 2002). Osborne, Erduran and Simon
(2004), for example, offered a number of strategies to develop argumentation
skills, e.g., exposing students to several explanations regarding a particular scientific subject and dealing with claims that the students may accept
or reject. They based their assessments on appropriate professional criteria
and expose students to two opposing theories that can explain a particular phenomenon. The students should: (1) explain what evidence supports
each of the theories, (2) construct arguments using structured patterns that
include guiding questions, and (3) predict the experiments results, based on
appropriate arguments, (4) observe the experiment and explain its results
(Predict, Observe, and Explain), and (5) design an experiment, carry it out,
and discuss the results. Chin and Osborne (2010) claim that questions (posed
by students either to their peers or to themselves) are an excellent trigger for
raising arguments.
Other researchers suggested using socio-scientific dilemmas because
these dilemmas are ambiguous and enable students to practice the process of
simultaneously posing claims and counter claims (Dawson & Venville, 2010;
Jimnez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez & Duschl, 2000; Sadler, 2004; Zohar & Nemet,
2002). Building an argument has significant social importance for students,
in addition to their learning scientific concepts and high-order learning
skills. While students are engaged in activities in which they are provided
with opportunities to develop argumentative skills, they learn how to conduct
a meaningful conversation with peers. Needless to say, these skills are useful
for overcoming lifes challenges and are not used solely in the context of science learning (Jimnez-Aleixandre et al., 2000).
In recent years, several researchers have used Toulmins model (Toulmin,
1958) in their studies. This model includes three basic components: a claim,
evidence, and a warrant for formulating grounded and rational arguments
(Bell & Linn, 2000; Driver, Newton & Osborne, 2000; Erduran et al., 2004;
78
Jimnez-Aleixandre et al., 2000; Kind, Wilson, Hofstein & Kind, 2010; Sandoval, 2003). The claim is an assertion whereby the one who suggests it believes
it to be true, e.g., a conclusion, an answer to a question, or a problem. Evidence is scientific data that support the claim. Scientific data consist of information, such as observations and measurements. The claim should be based
on evidences and the warrant justifies the link between the findings and the
claim. A higher level of argumentation includes a theoretical basis or explanation at an elementary level, namely, it also includes backing. Similarly,
a conditional (qualified) argument or counter claim is intended to refute a
particular argument. A rebuttal makes a claim about why certain claims are
incorrect and uses additional evidence and reasoning to justify it.
It is assumed that teaching science through the inquiry method is an
effective teaching strategy for teaching and developing the ability to expand
argumentation skills (Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Kind et al., 2010; Wilson, Taylor, Kowalski & Carlson, 2010). It is also assumed that an inquiry activity stimulates the students to better understand the research process that scientists
undergo. Scientists seek answers to unclear phenomena; they try to explain
them by collecting evidence and by constructing arguments. The construction of arguments is a sort of discourse that creates an epistemological framework within the scientific process. When considering the type of activities in
which scientists engage, one realizes that building significant arguments is
central to the development of science (Hofstein et al., 2008). Therefore, it was
reasonable to assume that we would find evidence for argumentation in the
laboratory.
argumentation in the science laboratory

Several researchers (e.g., Gott & Duggan, 2007; Sampson & Gleim, 2009) who
focused on the issue of argumentation suggested that the inquiry-type laboratory in science education can provide opportunities for students to develop
argumentation skills (see also the detailed discussion in Hofstein & Kind,
2012). However, only a few research studies were conducted with the goal in
mind of accepting or rejecting this assumption.
For example, Tien and Stacy (1996) found that students who participated in
guided inquiry-type laboratories were better at evaluating evidence obtained
from their research. Kelly, Druker and Chen (1998) analysed the discourse in
a physics laboratory and found that claims accompanied by justifications are
79
generally given in response to the claims of a colleague in light of the experiments findings or of the instructions, which may require an explanation or
reasoning on the part of the student.
Richmond and Striley (1996) claimed that the development of argumentation skills in the laboratory depends on the type of group. They presented a
study, conducted among 10th grade students, who performed a series of experiments dealing with the ability to cope with the disease cholera. The students
worked in small groups; the researchers found that the argumentation skills
that developed depended on the group leaders personality. In the groups that
had an inclusive leader, all the group members contributed in developing the
argumentation, whereas in the groups that had a persuasive leader, it was the
leader who developed the argumentation.
Other researchers (Hohenshell & Hand, 2006; Keys, Hand, Prain & Collins,
1999) suggested a strategy of best practice in the laboratory whose outcome
is a written report: Science Writing Heuristic (SWH). The lab reports, which
are written in this way, should replace the traditional way in which students
prepare laboratory reports (usually after performing the laboratory experiment). The students receive written guidelines that make connections among
the components of the inquiry process: observations, posing questions, data
collection, and evidence-based claims. The construction of knowledge and the
building of relationships are done by inquiry questions, which help students
establish their claims for the data that they gathered. This strategy enables
the students to become more active, especially in classroom group discussions.
Yoon, Bennett, Mendez & Hand (2010) elaborate on the optimal conditions
and specifications needed for classroom discussions using the SWH strategy.
They claim that a non-threatening learning environment, where students
feel comfortable to express themselves, to accept criticism, to listen to others, and to observe teachers who serve as models, provides MODIFIES ENVIRONMENT optimal conditions for encouraging discourse, thus leading to the
development of argumentation.
Sampson, Grooms, and Walker (2011) explored how a series of laboratory
activities designed using a new instructional model, called Argument-Driven
Inquiry (ADI), influences the ways students participate in scientific argumentation and the quality of the scientific arguments they craft as part of this
process. They found that the students had better disciplinary engagement and
produced better arguments after the intervention.
80
argumentation and the nature of the experiments

in the chemistry laboratory
Two recent studies reported in the literature discuss the nature of the experiments as a platform for evoking argumentation both quantitatively (the number of arguments) and qualitatively (the level of arguments). Kind, Kind,
Hofstein and Wilson (2011) in the UK investigated the quality of argumentation among 12 to 13-year-old students in the UK in the context of the secondary school physical science program. Their study explored the development
of students argumentation regarding who undertook three different designs
of laboratory-based tasks. The tasks described in their paper involved the students in the following: collecting and making sense of data, collecting data
for addressing conflicting hypothesis, and paper-based discussions in the
pre-collected data phase about an experiment. Their findings showed that
the paper-based task (the 3rd one in the above task list) generated the larger
number of arguments in a unit of time compared with the two other abovementioned tasks. In addition, they found that in order to encourage the development of high-level and authentic argumentation, there is a need to change
the practice that generally exists in the science laboratories in England. They
suggested that more rigorous and longitudinal research is needed in order to
explore the potential of the science laboratory as a platform for developing
students ability to argue effectively and in an articulated way.
The second study was conducted in Israel in the context of 12 years of
research and development of inquiry-type laboratories in the context of upper
secondary school in grades 10-12 (for more details about the philosophy and
rationale of the project, see Hofstein et al., 2004). The implementation and
effectiveness of this project were researched intensively and comprehensively
and were reported in a series of manuscripts (Barnea, Dori & Hofstein, 2010;
Dkeidek, Mamlok-Naaman & Hofstein, 2011; Hofstein, Levy Nahum & Shore,
2001; Kipnis & Hofstein, 2008).
The is highly relevant to our current paper (Katchevich, Hofstein &
Mamlok-Naaman, 2013) focuses on the process in which students constructed
arguments in the chemistry laboratory while conducting different types of
experiments. It was found that inquiry-type experiments have the potential to
serve as an effective platform for formulating arguments, owing to the special features of this learning environment. The discourse conducted during
inquiry-type experiments was found to be rich in arguments, whereas that
81
during confirmatory-type experiments was found to be sparse in arguments. In

addition, it was found that the arguments, which were developed during the
discourse of an inquiry-type experiment, were generated during the following stages of the inquiry process: hypothesis-building analysis of the results,
and drawing appropriate conclusions. On the other hand, confirmatory-type
experiments revealed a small number of arguments. In addition, the arguments that were posed in the confirmatory-type experiments had low-level
characteristics. Whereas the study reported in Katchevich et al. (2013) was
mainly comparative in nature (inquiry vs. confirmatory-type experimentation), the research described in this manuscript focuses on the degree of complexity of inquiry-type chemistry experiments.
As mentioned in previous studies, based on a detailed analysis of the discourse in the chemistry laboratory, we can conclude that the open-ended
inquiry experiments stimulate and encourage the construction of arguments,
especially the stages of defining hypotheses, analysis of the results, and drawing conclusions. Some arguments were raised by individuals and some by the
group. Both types of arguments consist of explanations and scientific evidence
that link the claims to the evidence. Therefore, it is suggested that learning
environments of open-ended inquiry experiments serve as a platform for raising arguments. In this study we wanted to point out the main factors that
stimulate raising arguments in open-ended inquiry experiments, as well as to
characterize situations in which argumentation develops significant discourse.
M ET HOD OL OGY
The research method used and described in this manuscript is mainly based
on the use of qualitative tools. Some of the qualitative findings were analysed
quantitatively. The qualitative approach enabled us to describe in detail the
phenomena and processes that occurred in the laboratory and that are related
to constructing arguments. Quantitative analysis of the qualitative findings
enabled us to describe the magnitude of the phenomena that we identified.
research population
The research population consisted of five classes of 11th and 12th grade chemistry
students (N=82) in 5 different high schools in Israel. Note that each class was
82
taught by a different teacher. The students study in an advanced placement

chemistry program that consists of a laboratory unit (about 20% of the total program including students final grades in the matriculation examination). All
teachers involved in this study underwent a continuous and intensive professional development program. The laboratory unit lasts two years and includes
a series of twelve experiments, some of which are open-ended-type inquiry
experiments, whereas others are more confirmatory experiments. In this study
we will report only about the open-ended-type inquiry experiments.
activities in the laboratory

The open-ended inquiry experiments include the following: Students perform
open-ended-type inquiry experiments in which they are exposed to a phenomenon; they ask questions about it, select the research question, write a
hypothesis related to the research question, plan an experiment in order to
examine their hypothesis, and then perform the experiment, organize their
results and draw conclusions, as well as analyse and summarize the inquiry
experiment (please see instructions for this type of activity in appendix 1).
research tools
The research tools consisted of the following: criterion-based observations in
the laboratory and semi-structured interviews with the students.
Observations in the laboratory
Laboratory observations were conducted during laboratory sessions and
focused on the discourse related to the experiments that took place in the
laboratory while students performed the experiments. The discourse was
audio-taped and the parts constructing a rational hypothesis, analysing the results, and drawing conclusions were transcribed. These parts
included interactions between the group members, and sometimes interactions between the group members and the teacher, who approaches and interacts with them.
The discourse was analysed according to the following criteria: the components of the basic argument: claims, evidence, and scientific explanations.
The analysis to identify the components of the argument was performed using
Toulmins model (Toulmin, 1958).
83
Data/evidence
claim
Since
warrant
backing
Figure 1 Toulmins model for the components of an argument
Toulmins model places more emphasis on the generic features of the argument, in line with our interest in argumentation in general. In addition,
Toulmins model has been used to characterize argumentation in science lessons and is implicit in using the coding system of others (Bell & Linn, 2000;
Driver et al., 2000; Erduran et al., 2004; Jimnez-Aleixandre et al., 2000; Kuhn
et al., 1997; Sandoval, 2003). Following these authors, we therefore used the
Toulmin framework to focus on the epistemic and argumentative operations
adopted by students. In order to assess the level of the arguments, we chose
a tool that refers to the various elements of an argument (see Table 1). This
tool was chosen from among many assessment tools appearing in the literature; it was reviewed in Sampson and Clarks (2008) paper. This tool is in line
with the discourse style of the laboratory experiments and with Toulmins
model; it is based on other tools suggested in former studies (Erduran et al.,
2004; Osborne et al., 2004; Simon & Johnson, 2008). During the discourse,
the students suggest different explanations for the various phenomena that
they observe during the experimental procedure and then analyse the data
and present arguments. The reliability of the coding of the argumentation
discourse components was tested in two ways: encoding the components of
the argumentation in 20% of the transcribed discourse, by three experts. The
percentage of agreement between the experts ranged from 85% to 90%. For
encoding in which the experts do not agree, the judges discuss the matter
until they reach a consensus. In addition, the researcher repeated the encoding after a while; the correlation between the early and late coding system
was 0.95.
84
The components
Symbol
level
Examples of arguments at different levels
Claim
Nurit: The more powder there is the faster the raisins move,
and over time [claim].
Claim + Data or
Claim + Warrant
CD CW
Nira: The more reactants that there are in the system, the
greater the concentration of solution B, more products will
be obtained, more gas will be generated, more bubbles will be
created, and more raisins will rise [claim + explanation].
Claim + Data +
Warrant
or
Claim + Data +
Rebuttal
or
Claim + Warrant +
Rebuttal
CDW
Moriah: As we increased the concentration of the solution,

there was a greater amount of sediment [evidence].
Gil: The more we increased the concentration of the solution,
the more the quantity of the products increased. We found
this by analyzing the quantity of the solid [claim + evidence].
Moriah: Because the reaction has more reactants, there are
more collisions between the particles of the reactants and
consequently, there are more fertile collisions [explanations].
Gil: And then more of the product that forms the solid that we
obtained is created and the solution obtained is more turbid
[continued explanation combined with evidence].
Claim + Data +
Warrant + Backing
CDWB
Noam: I want to state that a higher temperature will result

in a more frequent occurrence of the reaction [claim]. [He
draws a graph] there is an increase in H since this is an
endothermic process [evidence].
Alon: There is an increase in S as gas is generated; thus, this
is a descending graph [evidence + claim].
Noam: At a higher temperature G is more negative and the
reaction will be more spontaneous, according to the graph [he
points to the graph that was drawn in the report].
Alon: The spontaneity will be expressed in a broader dispersion
of the gas and, as a result, the gas spreads more, because it
has greater energy.
Ohad: The greater dispersion of the Iodine will be expressed
in a greater area that crystallized on the large test-tube
[explanation + backing].
Rebuttal that
includes Claim +
Data + Warrant
CDWR
Yarden: In the first system, there was no reaction at all [claim]

Bennie: Not so! There was a reaction, but not like in the other
systems. Insufficient gas was generated in order to raise the
raisins [refutation based on evidence + explanation].
CDR
CWR
table 1
The levels of the arguments posed by the students are presented in Table 1. Two
major aspects are referred to: (1) those components that form the basis of the
argument (claim evidence and scientific explanations), and (2) the presence
of rebuttal or counterclaims. When the argument includes many components,
its level is higher. An argument at level 3 includes the classic elements of an
argument: a claim, evidence, and a scientific explanation that connects them.
85
On the other hand, during an argumentative discourse, there is an additional

dimension that includes a counterclaim or refutation, the presence of which
serves as evidence of a high argumentative discourse level. Consequently, this
element is taken into account when determining argument levels. The highest
level of an argument, level 5, includes a refutation based on accompanying
scientific evidence and explanations. The discourse analysis was validated by
3 experts. Note that during the analysis of the argument components, we used
a scientific explanation expression instead of a warrant because students tend
to explain the evidence supporting their arguments by using scientific explanations based on their previous chemistry content knowledge.
The discourse during the experiments was transcribed, and used for two
additional goals: (1) Finding evidence of students wiliness to explain their
arguments, and (2) tracking students questions during the dialogue.
The experiments conducted by the students were categorized according to
the following criteria: (1) simple / complex experiments, and (2) experiments
in which the students obtained results that matched or did not match the suggested (posed) hypotheses. An experiment was defined as complex based on
the above criteria, namely, consisting of one of the following: The experiment
is not aligned with the concept or topic taught at that time in the chemistry
classroom, and/or is based on a scientific background that is not part of the
compulsory chemistry curriculum in Israel.
R E SU LT S
In this section of the paper we will refer to those factors that might affect
the scope of the arguments posed by the students during the discourse of an
open-ended inquiry experiment. In addition, we will discuss the other features related to the level of the experimental arguments. Based on the results,
we found two main factors that affect the scope of the arguments in the discourse of open-ended-type inquiry chemistry experiments.
assignment requirements and assessment

During the course of experimentation the students are involved in various
inquiry skills such as formulating a hypothesis, analysing results, and drawing conclusions, which are categorized as high-order thinking skills. More
86
specifically, hypothesis is a claim based on the preliminary experimentation

and on relevant scientific information and explanations. Students are generally aware of the task requirements and the assessment rubric.
Table 2 presents three criteria for assessing the hypotheses that appear in
the students written reports. The total score is 10 points (out of 100) for the
whole assignment.
Criteria
The students write an hypotheses regarding the research question which they chose
The students explain hypotheses regarding the research question which they chose
The students base their hypotheses on a scientific and relevant knowledge
table 2 criteria for assessing the hypotheses
We found some evidence in the discourse for the students awareness of the
task requirements. A discussion between two students will serve as an example (among many others). One of the students claimed: We discussed our
hypothesis, and even wrote it in our report. Her colleague answered: It is not
enough! In the instructions it was written that we need to reason and explain
each hypothesis. Even from the above minor episode, we can conclude that
the students developed an awareness of the requirements and instructions of
the assignments.
the degree of complexity

of the inquiry-type experiment
It is suggested that if the task presents a more complicated phenomenon than is
found in other tasks, it provides a higher probability for posing arguments. In
addition, if the inquiry experiment consists of scientific concepts that are not
an integral part of the formal syllabus or the experiment, then once again, it
may provide a wider and more articulated argumentative discourse.
In attempting to characterize the experiments according to their complexity (simplicity), we adopted the categories detailed in the methodology section
of this paper. The level of the complexity was content validated by several
teachers and science educators in the Department of Science Teaching. This
enabled us to conclude which experiment could be declared a simple chemistry experiment and which a more complex one.
87
All together, the researchers conducted fourteen classroom laboratory

observations on a group of students, of which eight were conducted in complex inquiry-type experiments and six in more simple ones. The average number and level of the arguments in simple and more complex experiments are
summarized in Table 3 using the Kruskal-Wallis test (nonparametric test).
Mean level
of the argument(SD)
Number of arguments
per experiment (SD)
complex inquiry-type experiment
2.3 (0.54)
6.5 (0.75)
simple inquiry-type experiments
2.5 (0.11)
2.7 (0.82)
(1) (p)
2.5 (N.S)
10.2 (0.001)
table 3 the average number and level of the arguments

in simple and complex experiments
Note that regarding the level of the arguments, no significant differences

were revealed when comparing simple and more complex experiments. It
is assumed that the level of arguments in the rather simple experiments is
related to the students background knowledge to which they were exposed
in the chemistry classroom. Thus, they do not have to build a new knowledge
gestalt (or framework).
the nature of the discourse

in which the arguments were posed
In addition to the factors identified as affecting the argumentation during
the open-ended experimental discourse, we found two features of the inquiry
process that influenced (developing) and posing of arguments: asking questions and unexpected results.
Asking Questions
The nature of the discourse in which arguments were posed is highly based on
the questions that were posed during the experimental discourse. During the
discourse conducted among the students themselves and between the students
and their respective teachers in the small group, one can identify three distinct types of questions: questions that stimulate discussions, questions aimed
at clarification and understanding the issues related to the experiments, and
questions posed for the purpose of obtaining information (in most cases tech88
nical ones). In this paper we will refer to the first two, where it is suggested
to initiate and drive the groups discourse and thus have the potential for
developing arguments or enhancing the development of more high-level-type
arguments. The following are examples of these two types:
Questions that stimulate a discussion: What would happen, in your opinion,
if we continue to heat up the beaker?
Questions aimed at clarification: What did you mean you said we need to
extend the level of the concentration?
Altogether, sixty-two questions were revealed during the observations that

included fourteen experiments (six groups conducted simple open-ended
inquiry experiments and eight conducted more complex open-ended inquiry
experiments) with small groups of students who were involved in conducting open-ended inquiry experiments. Forty-one questions were categorized
for discussion or were questions for the purpose of understanding. In those
groups conducting simple experiments, seven questions were posed, whereas
in the more complicated one thirty-four questions were posed. In addition,
high and significant correlation (Spearman correlation) was obtained (r=0.80
p< 0001 was found between the number of questions asked and the number
of resulting arguments). Thus, we assumed that there is a clear relationship
between these two variables.
Unexpected Results
The experiments were classified into two categories: experiments in which
results that correlate with the hypothesis were obtained and those in which
the results were unexpected and are not aligned with the hypothesis. An
analysis of the discourse in these experiments revealed that the average
number of arguments per group in experiments in which unexpected results
were obtained was significantly higher than the number in the experiments in which the anticipated results were obtained (2=6.7 p=0.017). In
the experiments in which anticipated results were obtained, only 7% of
the arguments included episodes of refutation; however, about 30% of the
experiments in which unexpected results were obtained included episodes
of refutation.
89
DISC USSION A N D SUM M A RY

In the experiments that were observed during the open inquiry experiment
in the chemistry laboratory, the students are indeed given a platform for constructing arguments, both as individuals and as part of a group. This is the
result of the special features of this learning environment: working in small
groups that enable the students to conduct an argumentative discourse. It
includes the need to provide explanations for the phenomena observed, select
inquiry questions, formulate a hypothesis, provide results and draw conclusions, and initiate a group discussion during which arguments are raised. The
arguments raised rely on the evidence collected during the experiment and
are usually based on either a scientific explanation studied in classroom or
knowledge accumulated during the group discussion regarding concepts that
were not learned in class. Furthermore, the students are allocated time to
execute all the aforementioned so that their potential can be exploited (Katchevich et al., 2013; Lazarowitz & Tamir, 1994).
In this research study we found two factors that affect the existence and
extent of the argumentative discourse while conducting an open inquiry experiment. The first is the task requirements and the reason for assessing the task.
The students are aware of the reason and the task requirements. The strict
instructions of the work for the students and indicators for assessment dictate the conduct of the inquiry activity in the laboratory. There is evidence in
the group discourse for this argument. The students read the instructions out
loud and conducted the activities stage by stage. They also examined the compatibility of executing them with the indicated requirements. This awareness
is the result of imparting work skills and habits by the teachers, which were
also revealed in the discourse.
In order for the students to conduct a discourse that includes established
arguments, they have to master the scientific background that supports the
arguments relating to the experiment (Von Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne &
Simon, 2008). However, on the other hand, in order to conduct a productive
discourse, they must include something beyond this scientific knowledge.
The requirement in the experiment has to be in the ZPD (Zone of Proximal
Development) field so that during the discourse, the group will propose possible explanations for these exposed phenomena and, while raising arguments
and refutations, the knowledge of the group and its individuals will be formulated (Vygotsky, 1978).
90
In our study we found that when the task presents a complex phenomenon,
which includes concepts that are beyond the curriculum, or alternatively, a full
enquiry experiment with a scientific background that links a number of content
subjects, the discourse is more meaningful and includes many more arguments.
On the other hand, in experiments that are not complex (simple) and that are
related directly to the concept studied in the formal curriculum material, generally, students know the answer to the inquiry question raised in advance and,
consequently, the hypothesis writing, results analysis, and drawing conclusions
stages are not controversial but rather, formulate an established argument with
a scientific background similar to the findings of Kind et al. (2011).
Apart from those factors that encourage constructing arguments, the task
requirements and their related complexity, we found additional features in the
inquiry activity on which an argumentative discourse developed. We found
that when students obtained unexpected results in a preceding experiment, or
in the experiment that they are planning, the discourse that develops includes
more arguments and even refutations. The unexpected results generate a cognitive conflict among the students, which requires them to re-examine what
they already know, ask themselves why this knowledge does not form a sufficient basis for explaining the results and whether they have to expand their
knowledge or propose explanations based on another scientific background that
they had not thought of previously, or that was unknown to them. The conflict
is resolved by the group discourse, which is sometimes guided by the teacher.
This is a discourse in which the students raise empirical arguments that they
perceived in the framework of the experiment (Osborne, 2010).
An additional feature associated with how an argumentative discourse
develops is raising questions during the discourse. In addition to the questions that deal with receiving information, the discourse includes questions
that require clarification or questions that open up a discussion. These questions generate attention from the groups members and, therefore, have a
very important function in developing an argumentative discourse. We also
found that in complex experiments, the students ask more questions and, consequently, many more arguments arise. This finding correlates with the Questions and Argumentation Model proposed by Chin and Osborne (Chin & Osborne,
2010). In this model, the investigators perceive questions as a factor that
motivates discussions. Sometimes the questions are directed at the questioner
himself and, sometimes at his peers in the group. However, the need for providing a reply serves as the catalyst for developing the discourse.
91
To sum-up, it is recommended that when teachers select experiments for

their classes, it is advisable that they be aware of the potential of these experiments for constructing arguments. Furthermore, they should be aware of the
additional features that are likely to contribute to argumentative discourse,
such as raising questions that generate a discussion both by themselves and
by the group members.
REFERENCES
Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of
the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school
science. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1945-1969.
Andriessen, J., & Schwarz, B. (2009). Argumentative design. In N. Muller-Mirza
& A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 145-174). New
York: Springer.
Barnea, N., Dori, Y. J., &Hofstein, A. (2010). Development and implementation
of inquiry-based and computerized-based laboratories: Reforming high school
chemistry in Israel. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 218-228. doi:
10.1039/C005471M.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee
(Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20-46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students
questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19,
230-284.
Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students argumentation skills about socio-scientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, 133-148.
Dkeidek, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Hofstein, A. (2011). Effect of culture
on high-school students questions-asking ability resulting from an inquiryoriented chemistry laboratory. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education 9, 1305-1331.
92
Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical

Education, 76, 543-547. doi: 10.1021/ed076p543.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation
discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation:
Developments in the application of Toulmins Argument Pattern for studying
science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
Fradd, S. H., Lee, O., Sutman, F. X., & Saxton, M. K. (2001). Promoting science literacy with English language learners through instructional materials
development: A case study. Bilingual Research Journal, 25, 479-501.
Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (2007). A framework for practical work in science and
scientific literacy through argumentation. Research in Science & Technological
Education, 25, 271-291.
Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. The School Review, 79, 171-212.
Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Toward a more critical approach to
practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85-142.
Hofstein, A., & Kind, P. (2012) Learning in and from science laboratories. In
B. Fraser, K. Tobin & K. McRobbie (Eds.), Second Handbook of Research in Science
Teaching (pp. 189-208). Dordrecht Nl: Springer.
Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Abrahams, I. (2013). How to Learn in and from
the Chemistry Laboratory. In A. Hofstein & I. Eilks (Eds.), Teaching Chemistry
A Study book (pp. 153-182). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Kind, P. (2008). Learning in and from science laboratories: Enhancing students meta-cognition and argumentation skills. In
C. L. Petroselli (Ed.), Science education issues and development (pp. 59-94). New
York: Nova Science.
Hofstein A., Levy Nahum, T., & Shore R. (2001). Assessment of the learning
environment of inquiry type laboratories in high-school chemistry. Learning
Environments Research, 4, 193-207.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education:
Foundation for the 21st century. Science Education, 98, 28-54.
Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman. R. (2005). Developing students ability to ask more and better questions resulting from
inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42,
791-806.
93
Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry
students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 47-62.
Hohenshell, L. M., &Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary
school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 261-289.
Jimnez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimnez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91-115). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
Jimnez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing
the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation
in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research
in Science Education, 43(1), 317-345.
Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students reasoning about electricity:
Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International
Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871.
Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing
heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1065-1081.
Kind, P., Kind, V., Hofstein, A., & Wilson, J. (2011). Peer Argumentation in the
School Science Laboratory Exploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 2527-2558.
Kind, P., Wilson, J., Hofstein, A., & Kind, V. (2010, March). Stimulating peer
argumentation in the school science laboratory: Exploring the effect of laboratory task formats. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.
Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 601-627.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287-315.
Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in
science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp.
94-130). New York: Macmillan.
94
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives
and context for contemporary teaching. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249-262). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in
school laboratory: An analysis of research, theory and practice. In S. K. Abell
& N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393-441).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McElhaney, K. W., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Investigations of a complex, realistic task:
Intentional, unsystematic, and exhaustive experimenters. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 48, 745-770.
Osborne, J. F. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical
discourse. Science, 328, 463-466.
Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classroom: Social processes in small group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for
future directions. Science Education, 92, 447-472.
Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts & practices in biology. American Biology Teacher,
71, 465-472.
Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-Driven Inquiry as a
way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and
craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95, 217-257.
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students scientific
explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5-51.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23-55.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F.
Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 3-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
95
Simon, S., & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 669-688.
Tien, L. T., & Stacy, M. (1996, April). The effects of instruction on undergraduate
students inquiry skills. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Tobin, K. G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities; in pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403-418.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to
learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students argumentation relates
to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 101-131.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M, & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative
effects and equity of Inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 47, 276-301.
Yoon, S. Y., Bennett, W., Mendez, C. A., & Hand, B. (2010). Setting up conditions
for negotiation in science. Teaching Science, 56, 51-55.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students knowledge and argumentation
skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
39, 35-62.
96
A PPEN DI X OPEN-EN DED INQU IRY E X PER IM EN T

T HE CON TAC T BET W EEN LIQUIDS
note: protective glasses and gloves must be worn!
general instructions:
Read all the instructions well before beginning the experiment.
Check that you have all the necessary equipment and materials at your
disposal in order to conduct the experiment.
pay strict attention regarding:

fulfilling the instructions for carrying out stage A precisely

recording as many observations as possible
reporting the observations clearly and in a well-organized manner
participation of all the group members in carrying out the various tasks
using correct and precise scientific language throughout the course
equipment and materials:

a Petri dish
about 30 ml of colored water
about 30 ml ethanol
3 Pasteur pipettes
A bottle of liquid soap
STAGE A : T HE PR E -INQUIRY E X PER IM EN T S

1. Drip colored water with a Pasteur pipette into a Petri dish until it will
cover about half the area of the base of the plate. Be sure that the other
regions are dry.
2. Drip Ethanol with a new Pasteur pipette into the dry part of the plate
until the two fluids meet.
3. Describe all the observations. If necessary you can add Ethanol.
4. Drip a drop of soap solution into the part where the colored water meets
the Ethanol.
5. Describe what is happening
97
STAGE B: T HE INQUIRY ST EP
I.
1. Formulate 5 varied, relevant questions that arose following the observations that were made.
Choose one of the questions that you would like to investigate.
Formulate this question clearly as an inquiry question, and to the
extent possible, as a link between two variables.
Clearly formulate a hypothesis that relates to the question that you
chose to investigate.
Give reasons for your hypothesis, based on correct and relevant scientific knowledge.
2. Plan an experiment that will check the validity of your hypothesis.
Detail all the steps of the experiment, including the control stage.
List the equipment and materials needed on the equipment request
form.
Consult with the teacher and make changes if necessary.
Submit the list of equipment and materials to the laboratory technician.
II.
3. Get the teachers approval for the proposed experiment.
Carry out the experiment that you proposed after receiving the
teachers approval.
Present the observations and the results in an organized form (table,
diagram, graph, etc.)
Analyze and interpret the results.
Draw conclusions as much as possible based on the experimental
results and rationalize them.
Examine the connection between the inquiry question and the conclusions.
4. In the summarizing group discussion
Express your opinion about all the stages of the inquiry (limitations,
precision, etc.).
98
To the extent necessary, point out the changes desirable in the

inquiry process.
List additional questions that arose following the whole process.
Prepare your groups summary of the experiment for presentation
before the class.
5. In the summarizing class discussion
Relate to our experiment by considering the reports of all the other
work groups.
6. Ensure that the report is well organized, aesthetic, and readable.

Enjoy the work!
*
99
enhancing students motivation to learn chemistry

Yamit Sharaabi-Naor
yamitsharaabi@yahoo.com | Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
Miri Kesner
Miri.Kesner@weizmann.ac.il | Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
Yael Shwartz
yael.shwartz@weizmann.ac.il | Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
abstract
The interest, attitudes, and motivation of students towards science learning decreases over time, especially during the middle school years. In order to increase
students motivation to learn chemistry, a national program Chemistry, Industry,
and the Environment in the eyes of the individual and society has been designed
to integrate three main components: (1) a competition format; (2) a context-based
approach, and (3) Project-based learning (PBL). Literature supports the effectiveness of each approach in enhancing students motivation. In this study we evaluated how the combination of these approaches influenced students motivation
to learn chemistry. In addition, we evaluated a similar project that took place in a
single school. The comparison took into account students characteristics regarding
their intrinsic motivation to study chemistry as a subject in general and the nature
of the project. We found that the national project increases students motivation to
learn chemistry, whereas a similar project that takes place in school does not have
the same effect. Nevertheless, we noticed a small decline in interest throughout
the project. Once again, this research provides additional evidence of the complexity of motivational processes.
key words
Competition; Motivation; High-school; Chemistry.
SISYPHUS
volume 2, issue 2,
2014, pp.100-123
Enhancing Students Motivation

to Learn Chemistry
Yamit Sharaabi-Naor | Miri Kesner | Yael Shwartz
T H EOR ET IC A L BAC KGROU N D

Motivation affects students learning and engagement in formal, semi-formal,
and informal activities. Already in 1993, it was suggested that we should turn
our attention towards motivation more than we have done before (Pintrich,
Marx & Boyle, 1993). Many studies in science education investigated students motivation by examining cognitive and affective constructs (Koballa &
Glynn, 2007; Logan & Skamp, 2008; Milner, Ben-Zvi & Hofstein, 1987; Shernoff
& Hoogstra, 2001).
Different definitions of motivation and theoretical frameworks have been
offered by researchers and practitioners in the area. However, most researchers
agree that Motivation is the process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained (Schunk, Pintrich & Meece, 2008, p. 5). Motivation is
a process rather than a product. As a process, we do not observe motivation
directly but rather we infer it from actions (e.g., choice of tasks, effort, and
persistence) and verbalizations (e.g., I really want to work on this). Motivation involves both physical and mental activity. Physical activity entails
effort, persistence, and other overt actions. Mental activity includes such cognitive actions as planning, rehearsing, organizing, monitoring, making decisions, solving problems, and assessing progress. Most activities that students
101
engage in are geared toward attaining their goals. There are several different
theories that are suggested in the literature that try to define and explain
the nature of motivating students involved in academic contexts. We present
here short examples of the four leading motivational theories in the field of
education: (1) Self-determination theory is directed to the process of students
utilizing their will (Deci, 1980, p. 26). In Self-determination theory students
must decide how to act on their environment according to their basic innate
psychological needs such as a sense of relatedness, ability, and autonomy in
order to be internally motivated (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier & Ryan, 1991). (2)
Attribution theories assume that individuals are motivated to understand and
master their world and will try to determine the causes of events (Kelley, 1971).
In an achievement context, the most important event is achieving success or
failure, and attribution theory proposes that individuals attributions will
have significant consequences on the motivational process. In Attribution
theory, two general categories can influence students attributions for success and failure: environmental (social norms and other situational features)
and personal factors (casual schema, attributional bias, prior knowledge, and
individual differences) (Weiner, 1986, 1995). (3) Achievement goal theory mainly
focuses on the goal orientation in the context of the academic behaviour of
students. This theory specifies two main goal orientations: mastery goals
orientation, and performance goals orientation. Mastery goals orientation
refers to an individuals purpose of developing competence, understanding,
and skills or achieving a sense of mastery (Ames, 1992). Performance goals
orientation refers to the purpose of demonstrating competence. Performanceoriented students are concerned with others perceptions of their competence
and with their ability relative to others (Ames, 1992; Nicholls, 1984). (4) Expectancy Value theory takes into consideration students perceptions of the value
of the task combined with their expectation to succeed in it (Eccles et al.,
1983). In our research we examined students motivation mainly through the
eyes of the Expectancy Value theory; hence, in our description we elaborate
more about this theory. Expectancy Value theory has two central variables
such as Expectancies and Values. The expectancy construct is one of the most
important mediators of achievement behaviour. Expectancies are individuals
beliefs and judgments about their capabilities to perform a task successfully.
Most individuals will not choose a task, or continue to engage in it when they
expect to fail. In colloquial terms, expectancy answers the question: Can I
do this task? (Eccles, 1993, 2005; Eccles, Wigfield & Schiefele, 1998; Pintrich,
102
1988a, 1988b; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2002). If the answer is
yes, then most students will choose to engage in the task. Values they refer
to the beliefs students have about the reasons why they might engage in a
task. Students might have a variety of reasons why they want to perform a
task. Eccles et al. (1983) proposed four major components of subjective values:
(1) Attainment value or importance the importance of doing well on a given
task. (2) Intrinsic value the enjoyment or intellectual satisfaction that one
gains from doing the task. (3) Utility value or usefulness of the task how
a task fits into an individuals future plans, for instance, participating in
a chemistry project to fulfil a school or teachers requirement, or to decide
whether to enrol in a chemistry class in the future. (4) Cost belief what the
individual believes that he/she has to give up while performing a task (e.g., do
I spend too much time working on the project instead of spending time with
my friend?), as well as the anticipated effort one needs in order to complete
the task.
Expectancy Value theory has had a long-standing tradition in achievement/motivation research, and current expectancy-value models have had
some of the strongest empirical support in educational settings (Eccles, 1987,
1993, 2005; Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000,
2002; Wigfield, Eccles & Rodriguez, 1998; Wigfield, Tonks & Eccles, 2004). We
utilized expectancy value theory for investigating students motivation to
learn chemistry by engaging them in a national competitive project.
Recently, studies have shown that the interest, attitudes, and motivation
of students towards learning science decline toward the end of elementary
school and especially during the middle school years (Anderman & Young,
1994; Galton, 2009; Osborne, Simon & Collins, 2003; Simpson & Oliver, 1990;
Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, 2011). In order to overcome this problem, new trends
have emerged that have influenced chemistry teaching throughout the world.
These trends attempt to create an appropriate curriculum suitable for general education in chemistry, and for increasing the popularity of chemistry learning. In the next section we describe two leading approaches that
positively influence the teaching and learning of science, as documented by
many researchers. However, the literature also points out that each approach
separately is insufficient to address all needs and challenges of science teaching and learning. Accordingly, in this paper we will present a program that
blends these two well-known approaches in such a way that utilizes their
benefits, and minimizes the disadvantages each has individually.
yamit sharaabi-naor | miri kesner | yael shwartz
103
T H E CON T E X T-BA SED A PPROAC H

A very popular approach in chemistry education is the context-based approach
(Gilbert, 2006; Pilot & Bulte, 2006), in which the scientific content is embedded in authentic contexts that show students the importance and relevance of
science, for improving their own life, and also show how scientific methods
and products can be applied (Gilbert, 2006; Bulte & Pilot, 2006). However,
several disadvantages of using this approach were reported. For example, students still exhibited a decrease in interest, especially in physics and chemistry. This can be explained by the fact that in many cases, the contexts were
chosen by the teacher or the curriculum developer, and not by the students.
Video studies have shown that teaching and learning styles are teacher dominated, and do not allow students to develop their own ideas. In other words,
students did not have enough autonomy in their learning process nor in
choosing the subject of their interest inside a fixed context (Graeber, 1995;
PISA consortium, 2007).
PROJEC T-BA SED LE A R N ING

Another popular approach related to science teaching and learning is Projectbased learning (PBL). Project-based learning (PBL) is a model that organizes
learning around projects. According to the definitions found in PBL handbooks for teachers, projects are complex tasks, based on challenging questions or problems, that involve students in design, problem-solving, decision
making, or investigative activities; they give students an opportunity to work
relatively autonomously over extended periods of time, and this results in
realistic products or presentations (Jones, Rasmussen & Moffitt, 1997; Thomas,
Mergendoller & Michaelson, 1999). Other features of PBL found in the literature include authentic content, authentic assessment, teacher facilitation
but not direction, explicit educational goals (Moursund, 1999), cooperative
learning, reflection, and incorporation of adult skills (Diehl, Grobe, Lopez
& Cabral, 1999; Thomas, 2000). In PBL, usually there are questions or problems that drive students to encounter (and struggle with) the central concepts and principles of science. The central activities of the project involve
the construction of knowledge by the students. PBL projects require much
more student autonomy, choice, unsupervised work time, and responsibility
104
than traditional instruction does. These are all characteristics that give the
students a feeling of authenticity and ownership.
The PBL approach is well known for its benets for students (Knoll, 1997;
Koschmann, 2001; Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006; Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx &
Soloway, 1994; Rosenfeld & Fallik, 2002; Ruopp, Gal, Drayton & Pster, 1993;
Thomas, 2000; Thomas, Mergendoller & Michaelson, 1999; Tinker, 1997). The
research literature shows that students who engage in PBL develop skills of
independent learning (including problem-solving), they learn to be more
open minded, remember what they learn longer, and perform better on standard achievement tests than non-PBL students do. These findings were demonstrated for PBL (Blumenfeld, Krajcik, Marx & Soloway, 1994; Ladewski, Krajcik
& Harvey 1994; Marx et al., 1994, 1997, 2004; Rivet & Krajcik, 2004; Schneider,
Krajcik, Marx & Soloway, 2002), and for design-based science (DBS) (Fortus,
Dershimer, Krajcik, Marx & Mamlok-Naaman, 2004). From a motivational
point of view, Project-Based Learning designs are viewed as maximizing students orientation toward learning and mastery. This could be mainly due to
their emphasis on student autonomy, collaborative learning, and assessments
based on authentic performances. In practice, Project-Based Learning designers have incorporated additional features such as variety, challenge, student
choice, and non-school-like problems in order to promote students interest
and perceived value (Blumenfeld et al., 1991).
COM PET IT IONS IN SC IENC E EDUC AT ION

The project reported in this paper is in a framework of a contextualized PBL,
and took place in the context of a national competition. Our decision to choose
the framework of a competition is supported by several studies, which consider competitions as an acceptable way to increase students motivation for
learning science. Competitions are popular all over the world. The chemistry
international Olympiads are aimed at high-school honour students, and are
mainly based on scientific content knowledge. For example, in the Internetsymposium 16-17 year-old students from several schools carry out a chemistry experiment and discuss their research (Internetsymposiom, 2010). Also,
the FameLab (2010) competition is intended for graduate students who are
requested to speak about scientific topics within three minutes. The IUPAC
internet site (2010) also suggests a few ideas about competitions for the Interyamit sharaabi-naor | miri kesner | yael shwartz
105
national Year of Chemistry 2011. This includes an essay competition Chemistry-our life, our future, and an international pictures contest Everything
is Chemistry.
In this paper we present our findings regarding how the national competition-PBL design affected students motivation to learn chemistry. We collected
students retrospective perceptions on their experience of learning chemistry
as part of being engaged in the national project. In addition, we compared
these perceptions with the perceptions of another group of students that were
engaged in a similar project that took place at school, named the school project. This comparison better emphasizes the characteristics that a PBL design
should have in order to achieve its goals of increasing students motivation to
learn chemistry while they are engaged in performing the project.
CON T E X T OF ST U DY: DE SC R IP T ION

OF T HE NAT IONA L PROJEC T C HEM IST RY, INDUST RY,
A ND T HE EN V IRONM EN T IN T HE E Y ES
OF T HE INDI V IDUA L A N D SOC IET Y
According to the education literature, students are more motivated to study the
subject matter when they find it more relevant to their lives and to the society
in which they live (Bennett & Lubben, 2006). The organizers of the project
found that it is important to emphasize the relevance of chemistry to daily life
in order to make chemistry studies more meaningful to the students (Frailich,
Kesner & Hofstein, 2007; Hofstein & Kesner, 2006; Kesner, Hofstein & Ben-Zvi,
1997). It is apparent that this context provides a very wide area of interest
to the students, and allows them a high degree of freedom to choose their
own subject of interest. In addition, utilizing the PBL approach enables the
learning to be more student-centred and teacher facilitated instead of teacher
guided. In this way, students can be more involved in the learning process and
can enjoy their choice of interest inside the context-based learning.
The first round of this national competition took place in 2008. Highschool students from all over the country were invited to take part in various
projects, all of which are aimed at highlighting the importance and relevance
of chemistry and its influence on individuals and to society.
Five parallel competitions were offered, namely: Preparing a short video;
Preparing a poster; Preparing a newspaper article; Presenting a laboratory
106
inquiry; Only in 2008: Solving a monthly riddle; Starting 2009: Preparing

a photograph. The students present an artistic photograph of a phenomenon
(related to chemistry), accompanied by a scientific explanation of the photographed phenomenon.
Each competition had different assessment criteria according to its unique
product, but all of them required that proper scientific background and relevance to daily life be included. At the end of the project, students submitted
their work for assessment. Those who prepared posters or laboratory inquiries
were also asked to present a five-minute-verbal presentation in front of the
judges.
the uniqueness of the national project

The uniqueness of the project can be characterized as follows:
It calls for the participation of high-school students at all levels (not only
the students who take chemistry as a major).
The fact that the project is based on a wide context area increases the students degree of freedom in choosing a subject of their interest.
Since the national competition is a PBL, it incorporates a good deal more
student autonomy, choice, unsupervised work time, and responsibility
than traditional instruction does. This also may have a positive effect on
students experiences, and they might enjoy the learning process more,
and increase their internal motivation to learn chemistry.
It offers ongoing mentors facilitation, both online and face-to-face.
The students can meet and receive support and advice from experts in the
relevant fields; these experts include scientists from chemical companies
and science educators.
Students are encouraged to participate in a one-day seminar (held in three
regions) in which they participate in different workshops according to the
type of product they are aiming at.
The competitions promote peer collaboration - the chemistry students can
involve students who major in other areas such as communication and
multimedia according to the projects requirements.
The various competitions allow students with different learning styles and
abilities to participate. They can prepare a specific type of product according to their interests, abilities, and talents.
107
The project uses a formative assessment approach: There is a follow up

process in which the outlines and interim products are checked and commented on if needed. The embedded assessment ensures that the students
undergo a meaningful learning process, and helps in obtaining high-level
students products.
All students who reach the final stage of the competition participate in a
one-day national conference in which they present their work to their colleagues; they can choose their own unique way of presentation.
The competition format enables students who reach the final stages to
receive recognition for their work, and serve as their school representative. This may give students the feeling that they have a meaningful
impact on their school image, and they may change their self-efficacy.
project participants
Year
No. of students participating in projects
No. of students who reached

the final stage
No. of participating schools

that reached the final stage
2008-2009
220*
115
22
2009-2010
250
150
25
2010-2011
700
165
26
2011-2012
650
170
Not including the monthly riddle.
Table 1 includes the national projects participants over the years.
30
table 1 number of participants over the years
During the first two years the number of participants continued to grow
slowly; however, two years later it started to grow significantly. This growth
over the years serves as an indicator to the success of the national project.
some examples of students projects

Some students conducted lab inquiries on a variety of topics such as the effect
of wine acidity on its colour; how do flame retardants, which are incorporated in different types of clothing, affect combustion; investigating the reaction between Coca-Cola and Mentos, as well as fermentation. Students created
short videos on polymers, Dead Sea products, olive-oil production and its nutritional benefits, global warming, and others. Examples of newspaper reports
108
are recycling, Chemistry in police work, and Chemistry used for our beauty.
Examples of Posters topics are: Chemistry of love, acid rain, and how fuel can
be obtained from water.
These examples demonstrate both the wide range of topics that students
chose to focus on, as well as the socio-scientific aspects found in all the topics.
T H E ST U DY
The research took place in 2011-2012. Research design included the assessment
of various components derived from the Expectancy-Value theory, and students perception of a career in chemistry. We devoted a significant part of
the research to the intrinsic value derived from the Expectancy-Value theory,
since we consider it to be a good indicator that enables us to compare students intrinsic motivation to learn chemistry by engaging in a project, and
by approaching chemistry-related fields in their free time.
All motivational constructs were examined in two frameworks: (1) in the
National project competition, characterized by a free choice participation
and took place in the Davidson Institute (in the Weizmann Institute of Science) and (2) in a similar school project competition, in which participation was obligatory. The type of products and the assessment criteria for the
school project were similar to those of the national project; except that the
school project was organized and facilitated by their chemistry teacher and
was included in their chemistry formal scores at the end of their school year.
We examined students perceptions of the experience of learning chemistry while they engaged in the projects, and we investigated, following their
engagement in the project, whether students motivation to learn chemistry
increased.
Since the students that participate in a national project freely chose to participate in it, we tended to think that they engaged in the activity for their own
benefits and this falls into the authentic definition of intrinsic motivation. In
the case of the school project, despite the fact that students were obligated to
participate in the project, it was interesting to determine whether they still
were internally motivated. We used this group as a control group relative to the
national group. In order to overcome the possible differences in intrinsic motivation, we extracted from the two populations two sub-groups that were similar
in their intrinsic motivation for chemistry learning at school and for approaching
109
chemistry contents in general in their free time and compared their motivation to be
engaged in the project. This will be presented in detail in the Results section.
research goals and questions

Our main purpose was to evaluate how the National project motivationally
influenced chemistry learning for students. We addressed this question by
collecting students retrospective perceptions of their experience in learning
chemistry through their engagement in the national project. The fact that
the national project took place in an academic institute outside school might
enhance students motivation to learn chemistry more than if they were
engaged in such a project at school. We compared the retrospective perceptions for their learning experience in the school project with those received
for the national project.
An additional way to evaluate the success of the project is by comparing the intrinsic motivation of students to learn chemistry, following their
engagement in a project, with their motivation to approach chemistry contents in their free time. Hence, we examined (for each individual student) the
value of intrinsic motivation for chemistry learning via engaging in the project relative to that of being self-engaged in chemistry contents in general in
their free time. These comparisons were conducted in both population groups:
the national project and the school project students).
Based on the above goals, our research questions are as follows:
1) How does the national project motivationally influence students to learn
chemistry?
2) Are there differences in students intrinsic motivation (for learning chemistry) while they engage in the project, relative to when they choose to be
self-engaged in it on their free time and will?
research population
National project Experimental group
School project Control group
N=116
N=52
table 2 research population; students who

participated in the evaluation research 2011-2012
Table 2 describes the two groups that were studied in the current study.
110
research tools
(1) A Likert-type questionnaire (1-5 scale) was developed for assessing various motivation categories. The categories were defined once for chemistry
learning within the project, and once for chemistry subject in general. The
categories for chemistry learning within the project are as follows: interest, enjoyment, easiness/difficulty, importance of doing well in a given
task, and effort. The categories for students perception of chemistry as a
subject are as follows: interest and enjoyment while approaching chemistry
contents in their free time and chemistry as a future career. The questionnaire was validated by 3 science-education researchers. Internal reliability,
obtained by calculating the -cronbach coefficient for each category, is presented in Table 3.
Category
Alpha
Cronbach
No. of
items
Example of an item
Chemistry in General
Interest (free
time)*
0.83
Chemistry-related issues evoke my curiosity
Career
0.88
It is possible that Ill choose a career in chemistry
Interest
0.86
To what extent did the chemistry project

evoke your curiosity?
Enjoyment
0.8
Learning chemistry by engaging in the project was fun
Easiness /Difficulty
0.71
Learning the subject matter was easy when

engaging in the project
Importance
0.85
It is important for me to succeed in the project
Effort
0.72
I made a big effort in order to succeed in the project
Project
*This reflects students interest when they engage in chemistry in their free time.
Table 3 -cronbach coefficient of categories
(2) An open-ended questionnaire allowed us to gather information regarding why students participated in the national project (or in other words the
utility value), the way students conducted their research, the kind of assistance that they used (or needed), some reflections regarding their learning
111
throughout the project, and whether the project influenced their attitude
towards chemistry as a subject.
(3) 15 reflective interviews were conducted regarding students experience
and their desire to learn chemistry following their project and school studies.
Triangulation was obtained by the three data sources the Likert-type questionnaire, the open-ended questions, and interviews.
data collection & analysis

Lykert questionnaire: The value of Interest was examined at the beginning
and end times of the project (September and March 2012, respectively), all
other values (such as enjoyment or difficulty) were examined at the end of the
project. The mean score for each category was calculated and a paired t-test
procedure was completed for comparing the students motivation categories
(or specific item) for the school project or national project.
The open-ended questionnaire: Students answers were categorized according to the subject questioned. Then, all answers belong to a specific category
were pooled to form a list of citations. Trends were observed and were used to
support and explain data emerging from the Likert-type questionnaire.
Reflective interviews: The interviews were open in nature: students were
asked to describe their experience and the process they underwent. Students
talked freely and their answers were audio recorded, and transcribed. The
transcripts were divided into sections by common categories. The categories
emerged from students answers. Also here, the interviews were utilized to
better understand the results and to validly interpret the results.
R E SU LT S A N D DISC USSION
(1) How does the National project motivationally influence the students learning of
chemistry?
By the end of the National project or school project we collected students retrospective perceptions for their chemistry learning via engagement in the
national project. These are presented in Table 4. Table 4 shows relatively high
mean scores for all motivation categories related to the national project. All
means are scored above the median (3 out of 5). The results are quite different
for the school project. They had significantly lower scores than those engaged
112
in the national project in most motivational categories related to the project.

This picture is reflected from all categories relating to the project except for a
single category referring to Easiness /Difficulty. Since both groups have similar scores for the Easiness/Difficulty category (average of 3.7 in both groups
in favour of chemistry being perceived as easy), we claim that the Easiness /
Difficulty category does not have a meaningful contribution to the differences
observed in students motivation for learning chemistry via the national project
relative to the school project. Our results may be interpreted as showing that the
national project has more of an effect on students motivation for chemistry
learning than the school project. However, this effect may not be attributed
only to the nature of the project.
Category
National project
Mean
School Project
Mean
Pr > |t|
Interest (free time)
3.3
2.8
0.0016
Career
3.2
2.1
<.0001
Interest
3.6
2.3
<.0001
Enjoyment
4.0
2.9
<.0001
Effort
3.5
2.4
<.0001
Importance
4.5
3.6
<.0001
3.7
3.7
NS
Chemistry in general 1
Project 2
1
2
These categories assessed the way students perceive chemistry in their free time.
These categories assessed chemistry learning via students engaging in the project.
table 4 mean scores of different motivation categories for the

experimental (national project) and control (school project) group
It might have something to do with the difference between the two populations regarding students intrinsic motivation to learn chemistry in general.
Our results show significant differences in students motivation to approach
chemistry contents in their free time for the national project compared with
the school project population (Table 4). It appears that students that engage
in the national project have significantly greater interest in approaching chemistry contents in their free time than those engaging in the school
project. Moreover, students engaging in the National project reported that
113
they are more interested in a chemistry career than those who engaged in the
school project (Table 4). These results may suggest that students that participated in the national project were more intrinsically motivated than those
who engaged in the school project. In addition, the fact that students chose
to participate in the national project, and were not obligated to do so by their
teachers, could also contribute to the their greater enhancement in motivation
that was observed for students participating in the national project relative to
school project. Information gathered from interviews shed more light on how
the populations of the national project and the school project were motivated. It
appears that they differ from each other not only regarding their motivation to
be engaged in the project, but also in the way they perceive chemistry in general. Students from the national project exhibited positive attitudes for chemistry
in general and for the project in particular, for example, some said:
Chemistry is a subject that always interested me ()
I always liked chemistry ()
I enjoyed learning by myself; it is a subject of my choice.
In the case of the school project we did not observe that students spontaneously favoured chemistry, and we even observed negative impressions regarding the project itself. A sample quote:
I think it is not fun to do a project in general () Since it demands investment in time which most students lack.
Considering all of the above, one can easily doubt the conclusion that the
National project had more of an influence on students motivation to learn
chemistry compared with the school project. The differences in motivation
may result from differences between both populations regarding their intrinsic motivation to study chemistry in general. In order to focus only on the
impact that the national project has on students motivation to learn chemistry, we searched for a statistical way to eliminate the impact related to the
differences in intrinsic motivation seen between both populations.
We statistically extracted two new subgroups that were similar in their
intrinsic motivation, once for chemistry learning at school and once for approaching chemistry contents in general in their free time. Intrinsic motivation contains the
Interest and Enjoyment values (data presented in Table 5). To achieve that, we
114
excluded all students with scores above 3.5 in these categories from the national
project population. We now had two groups with no significant difference in
their intrinsic motivation (see Table 5). For these two new groups, we again compared all motivational categories related to the project (see Table 6).
Category
School Project
Mean
National project
Mean
Pr > |t|
Intrinsic motivation <Chemistry>*
2.56
2.57
N.S
Intrinsic motivation <school>**
2.99
2.87
N.S
* This category includes items relating to students interest and enjoyment of chemistry in their free time.
** This category includes items relating to students interest and enjoyment of chemistry learning at school.
table 5 mean scores of intrinsic motivation data calculated

for a characteristic sample belonging to the experimental
(national project) and control (school project) group.
the characteristic samples excluded data that were above 3.5
Category
School project
<Mean>
National project
<Mean>
School project /National project
Interest
2.32
3.148
<.0001
Enjoyment
2.847
3.613
<.0001
Intrinsic motivation
<project>*
2.531
3.337
<.0001
Effort
2.399
3.344
<.0001
Importance
3.625
4.311
<.0001
3.71
3.554
N.S
2.086
2.629
0.0079
Career
* This category includes items relating to students interest in and enjoyment of learning chemistry after
engaging in a project.
table 6 mean scores of different motivation categories for the

characteristics of the experimental (national project) and control
(school project) group. the characteristics are presented in table 5
Apparently there are significant differences in most motivational categories

between the national project relative to the school project, besides the Easiness /Difficulty category. Even though we created two groups that have similar
115
intrinsic motivation to study chemistry in general and for learning chemistry

at school, our results did not change and explicitly show that the motivation
to learn chemistry is significantly greater for those in the National project.
Finally, we can clearly state that the national project increases students motivation to learn chemistry significantly more than the school project.
(2) Are there differences in students intrinsic motivation (for learning chemistry) while
they engage in the project, relative to when they choose to be self-engaged on their free
time and will?
An additional way to evaluate the success of the project is by comparing students intrinsic motivation to learn chemistry within the project to their
intrinsic motivation to approach chemistry contents in their free time. We
compared the values of interest and enjoyment that constitute the intrinsic motivation component. This comparison was done within each population
separately (national project and school project). Table 7 shows the results of
this comparison.
Category
National project <Mean>
Intrinsic motivation
School Project <Mean>
Chemistry
Project
Pr > |t|
Chemistry
Project
Pr > |t|
3.25
3.72
<.0001
2.56
2.53
NS
table 7 mean scores of the intrinsic motivation (enjoyment & interest

items) towards chemistry in general and specifically in the project
It appears that students of the national project group have significantly

higher intrinsic motivation for chemistry learning both within the project
and when they are self-engaged with chemistry contents in their free time.
However, there is no difference in the school project group regarding
their motivation to learn chemistry within the project and in their free time.
Their intrinsic motivation in both cases is quite similar (and low), whereas
students intrinsic motivation to participate in the national project is significantly greater than when they are involved in chemistry in their free time.
This means that there is a need for a structured framework and deadlines;
this establishes a delicate balance between this need and the freedom and
choice that the project should provide.
116
Here are some examples derived from students reports, which support our
conclusion:
1. In the case of the national project, students reported that it is more exciting to do the project in a research institute or an industrial facility (providing that they receive scientific, professional, and social support).
I enjoyed the experience of going to the university and investigating the subject more deeply.
I mostly enjoyed the interview I conducted with a doctor for nuclear medicine, meeting with professional people, elaborating my knowledge by learning new contents and working with industrial companies
2. Students participating in the national project had a chance to meet other

students coming from different schools across the country and to present
their work to each other. As a result, students undergo an extraordinary
positive experience socially and emotionally.
I enjoyed doing experiments related to my subject of choice and from presenting our project to other students we met.
Our main conclusion is that the national project enhances students motivation for learning chemistry and significantly contributed to students in terms
of interest, enjoyment, and importance. Students motivation was found to be
higher regarding their engagement in the national project framework compared with a school project framework, which was less successful. Interestingly, students intrinsic motivation for learning chemistry is higher through
engagement in the national project, and lower when they are self-engaged in
chemistry contents in general in their free time, which implies the importance of an external framework. Here are some supporting quotes:

During the project, I found out how interesting chemistry can be and I
learned about new phenomena. (Interest)
Chemistry is a much more complex subject than I previously taught.

(Difficulty)
117
The teamwork increased my enthusiasm for chemistry learning

(Motivation)
Following a question: Would you consider participating again next year? Students mainly responded:
Yes, it reflects my interests. I am curious to deal with another subject.
Yes, it helped me better understand the lessons at school.
As was discussed in the introduction, the research literature shows that students who engage in PBL develop skills of independent learning, learn to be
more open minded, remember what they learn longer, and perform better
on standard achievement tests than do non-PBL students. Our research adds
an additional perspective of how the national project (considered as a PBL),
which takes place outside of school, contributes to students motivation to
learn chemistry. We showed here that the national project increases students
motivation to be engaged in learning chemistry, whereas a similar project that
takes place within school does not have the same effect. Apparently, students
participating in the school project did not experience the projects unique
atmosphere, especially the social interactions with experts and students from
other schools, as experienced by the students of the national project.
In the future, we would like to better understand how school can enhance
and maintain students motivation to learn chemistry after they engage in the
project. For example, students often reported that pressure from the school
daily demands damages their functioning in the project. Since the project is
time consuming, this time should be recognized by schools as a time of learning, and as such, it may replace a topic that is traditionally taught in class.
As a consequence, schools may allow more time for, and put less pressure on
students dealing with the project. An authentic collaboration between schools
and external educational institutions should be established and implemented
in order to promote students motivation to be engaged in such a project, and
to increase continuum motivation through the project as well.
118
AC K NOW LED GM EN T S
We would like to thank CIL, for funding the projects activities since 2008, and
we wish to thank Ms. Karen Siem for her kind support, which enabled us to
conduct research related to the project.
R EF ER ENC E S
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Anderman, E. M., & Young, A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science:
Individual differences and classroom effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(8), 811-831.
Bennett, J., & Lubben, F. (2006). Context-based Chemistry: The Salters approach.
International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 953-956.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). Lessons learned: How collaboration helped middle grade science teachers learn
project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 539-551.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M.,
& Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the
doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398.
Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 325-346.
Diehl, W., Grobe, T., Lopez, H., & Cabral, C. (1999). Project-based learning: A strategy for teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Center for Youth Development and
Education, Corporation for Business, Work, and Learning.
Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and womans achievement related decisions.
Psychology of women Quarterly, 11, 135-172.
Eccles, J. S. (1993). School and family effects on the ontogeny of childrens interest, self-perceptions, and activity choice. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska symposium
on motivation: Developmental perspectives on motivation (pp. 145-208). Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
119
Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. Model of achievementrelated choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation (pp. 105-121). New York: Guilford Press.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece,
J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In
J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75-146). San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W.
Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol.
3. Social emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 1017-1095). New
York: Wiley.
Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & MamlokNaaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning.Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081-1110.
Frailich, M., Kesner, M., & Hofstein, A. (2007). The influence of web-based
chemistry learning on students perceptions, attitudes, and achievements.
Research in Science & Technology Education, 25(2), 179-197.
Galton, M. (2009). Moving to secondary school: Initial encounters and their
effects. Perspectives on Education (Primary Secondary Transfer in Science), 2, 5-21.
Gilbert, J. (2006). On the nature of context in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957-976.
Graeber, W. (1995). Interests of students and accounting for that in STS education: Results of an empirical study in chemical education]. Empirische Pdagogik, 9, 221-238.
Hofstein, A., & Kesner, M. (2006). Industrial Chemistry and school chemistry:
Making chemistry studies more relevant. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1041-1062.
Jones, B. F., Rasmussen, C. M., & Moffitt, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving:
A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attributions in social interactions. Morristown, NJ: General
Learning Press.
Kesner, M., Hofstein, A., & Ben-Zvi, R. (1997). Student and teacher perceptions of industrial chemistry case studies. International Journal of Science Education, 19(6), 725-738.
Knoll, M. (1997). The project method: Its vocational education origin and international development. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34(3), 59-80.
120
Koballa, T. R. J., & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs

in science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research
on science education (pp. 75-102). Mahwah, New Jersey and London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Koschmann, T. (2001). Deweys contribution to a standard of problem-based
learning practice. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.),
European perspectives on computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 356-363).
Maastricht, The Netherlands: Maastricht McLuhan Institute.
Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based science. In R. K. Sawyer
(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317-334). New York: Cambridge.
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based
instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 483-497.
Ladewski, B. G., Krajcik, J. S., & Harvey, C. L. (1994). A middle grade science
teachers emerging understanding of project-based instruction. The Elementary
School Journal, 94, 499-515.
Logan, M., & Skamp, K. (2008). Engaging students in science across the primary
secondary interface: Listening to the students voice. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 501-527.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Blunk, M., Crawford, B.,
Kelly, B., et al. (1994). Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four
middle grade teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 517-538.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier,
R., et al. (2004). Inquiry based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban system reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1063-1080.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science: Challenges for practice and policy. Elementary School
Journal, 97, 341-358.
Milner, N., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (1987). Variables that affect students enrolment in science courses. Research in Science and Technological Education, 5(2), 201-208.
Moursund, D. (1999). Project-based learning using information technology. Eugene, OR:
International Society for Technology in Education.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective
experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328-346.
Osborne, J. A., Simon, S. B., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science:
A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science
Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.
121
Pilot, A., & Bulte, A. (2006). Why Do You Need to Know? Context-based education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1017-1039.
Pintrich, P. R. (1988a). A process-oriented view of student motivation and cognition. In J. Stark & L. Mets (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning through research:
New directions for institutional research, 57 (pp. 65-79). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pintrich, P. R. (1988b). Student learning and college teaching. In R. Young & K.
Eble (Eds.), College teaching and learning: Preparing for new commitments: New directions for teaching and learning, 33 (pp. 71-86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual
change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in
the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167-199.
Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic
reform: An example of a sixth grade project-based science curriculum. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 669-692.
Rosenfeld, S., & Fallik, O. (2002). Project-based learning in science and technology:
A teacher handbook. Israel: Weizmann Institute of Science and the Ministry of
Education. (In Hebrew.)
Ruopp, R., Gal, S., Drayton, B., & Pster, M. (Eds.) (1993). LabNet: Toward a community of practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education:
Theory, research and application. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey and Colombus,
Ohio: Pearson.
Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project based science classrooms on a national measure
of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 410-422.
Shernoff, D. J., & Hoogstra, L. (2001). Continuing motivation beyond the high
school classroom. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 93, 73-88.
Simpson, R. D., & Oliver, J. S. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude toward and achievement in science among adolescent students. Science
Education, 74(1), 1-18.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Autodesk Foundation PBL. Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/index.php/site/resource/item27/.
Thomas, J. W., Mergendoller, J. R., & Michaelson, A. (1999). Project-based
learning: A handbook for middle and high school teachers. Novato, CA: The Buck Institute for Education.
Tinker, B. (1997). Thinking about science. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from
http://archive.concord.org/publications/pdf/ThAbSci.pdf.
122
Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents Declining Motivation to Learn

Science: Inevitable or Not?Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 199-216.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct.
New York: Guilford Press.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A
developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49-78.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement
motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs,
expectancies for success, and achievement values from childhood through
adolescence. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 91-120). San Diego: Academic Press.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Rodriguez, D. (1998). The development of childrens motivation in school contexts. Review of Research in Education, 23, 73-118.
Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Expectancy value theory in
cross-cultural perspective. In D. M. Mclnerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 165-198). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
sites
Famelab: http://famelab.org/home.html
Internetsymposium: http://www.pieternieuwland.nl/Menu_Items/Projecten/
Symposium/index.html
PISA consortium: http://www.pisa.oecd.org
IUPAC: http://www.chemistry2011.org
*
123
inquiry-based science education and special needs

teachers reflections on an inclusive setting
Simone Abels
simone.abels@univie.ac.at | Universitt Wien, Austria
abstract
Many countries in the world signed and ratified the UN Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities (2006) in order to ensure inclusive education at all
levels. Nevertheless, dealing with differences in the classroom is seen as one of the
biggest challenges teachers also science teachers face at the moment. Additionally, there is a lack of research in science education how to foster students appropriately in regard to their diverse pre-conditions. Research studies often recommend carefully scaffolded inquiry-based teaching approaches. This article is divided
in two parts. The first part attempts to sum up what is known about the inclusion of students with special needs in science classes teaching them inquiry-based.
The second part introduces a case study which investigates an open inquiry-based
learning environment in an inclusive middle school. The learning environment is
videotaped and reflected with the teachers. Ideas for change are developed. Conclusions are drawn for the facilitated competence gain for students with and without
special needs.
key words
Special education; Inquiry-based learning; Inclusion; Reflection; Case study.
SISYPHUS
volume 2, issue 2,
2014, pp.124-154
Inquiry-Based Science Education

and Special Needs Teachers
Reflections on an Inclusive Setting
Simone Abels
IN T RODUC T ION
Inclusion has its origin in special needs education (UNESCO, 2005). In 1994
the UNESCO Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action in Special Needs Education claimed that those with special educational needs must have access
to regular schools which should accommodate them within a child-centered
pedagogy capable of meeting [their] needs (United Nations & Ministry of
Education and Science Spain, 1994, p. viii). In recent years the majority of
the countries in the world have signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities1, which means those countries have to take the responsibility
to implement an inclusive school system. The right to education for every student was already set in 1948 (United Nations, 1948). In the meantime, the UN
added that education on the basis of equal opportunity cannot be denied
(United Nations, 2006, p. 16). Equal opportunity means genuine access to
learning experiences that respect individual differences and quality education for all focused upon personal strengths rather than weaknesses (Meijer,
2010, para. 2). Accordingly, inclusion is defined as
http://www.un.org/disabilities/countries.asp?id=166 (Retrieved October 21, 2013).

125
a process of addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all learners through increasing participation in learning, cultures and communities, and reducing exclusion within and from education. It involves changes
and modifications in content, approaches, structures and strategies, with a
common vision which covers all children of the appropriate age range and
a conviction that it is the responsibility of the regular system to educate all
children (UNESCO, 2005, p. 13, original emph.).
Important is, for one thing, the idea of differentiation addressed in this definition as a strategy to provide equal opportunities. And for another thing, the
attitude is crucial that the education system has to be made inclusive, not the
student has to be made includable.
The perspective is that every student should be perceived as having particular learning needs. Furthermore, in many mainstream schools social developments like globalization, migration, demographic and value change are notable,
increasing the diversity of students attending the same school (Krell, Riedmller, Sieben & Vinz, 2007). Thus, all teachers should develop competencies such
as individualizing, differentiating and diagnosing to meet the individual needs
of all students coming together in one classroom at least partly to be supported
by special educators. Education policy and teacher education have to shoulder
responsibility to support teachers regarding these demands.
Empirical evidence for the normative demands is coming from the OECD.
PISA has revealed that countries with inclusive school systems are more
likely to be high-performance countries (OECD, 2010). One indicator for an
inclusive system named by the OECD is that students are rarely transferred
out of school because of special educational needs.
Despite the ratification of the policy documents and this data, inclusive
education is not facilitated for every student yet, especially in those countries which traditionally pursue a segregated school system (Sliwka, 2010). For
example, in Austria about 41% and in Germany almost 79% of the students
with special educational needs are taught in separated settings (European
Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2007, 2012).
This issue has not only to be discussed systemically on a macro level, but
also on a micro level concerning equal learning opportunities in the classroom which are not sufficiently provided. A resistance from practitioners
to change and develop their professional practice to meet the demands and
challenges of inclusive education, have led to extremely variable and often
126
poor practice in the area (Lloyd, 2002, p. 111). Teachers view the differences
of their students as one of the biggest challenges to deal with in the classroom (Meijer, 2010). Nevertheless, it is an educational demand and political
obligation to adapt teaching practices to the specific needs of all students in
a mainstream school, including students with special needs. Research has to
provide evidence-based implications for teachers how different students can
be fostered best in one classroom.
At the same time as the inclusion movement proceeded, the Science for All
movement was sharpened (National Research Council, 1996). School science still
has the purpose to prepare students for future studies and careers in science, but
this is not the only obligation anymore. [T]he primary and explicit aim of the
5-16 science curriculum should be to provide a course which can enhance scientific literacy, as this is necessary for all young people growing up in our society,
whatever their career aspirations or aptitudes (Millar & Osborne, 1998, p. 9).
According to the OECD (2006) scientific literacy refers to an individuals:
Scientific knowledge and use of that knowledge to identify questions,
acquire new knowledge, explain scientific phenomena and draw evidence-based conclusions about science-related issues
Understanding of the characteristic features of science as a form of
human knowledge and enquiry
Awareness of how science and technology shape our material, intellectual, and cultural environments
Willingness to engage in science-related issues and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen (OECD, 2006, p. 23).
Life-long learning and acting responsibly in a democratic society are crucial

in our rapidly changing, technology-driven culture. Therefore, students need
to develop the capacities to apply knowledge and skills in key subject areas
[like science] and to analyse, reason and communicate effectively as they
pose, interpret and solve problems in a variety of situations (OECD, 2010, p.
17). Methodologically and on a more practical level, inquiry-based science education (IBSE) is rated as an appropriate approach so that students can develop
these capacities in science and become scientifically literate (European Commission, 2007; National Research Council, 2000).
Inquiry refers to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of
simone abels
127
how scientists study the natural world (National Research Council, 2000,
p. 23). Teaching inquiry-based strives for three aims:
to construct scientific knowledge,
to learn how to perform an investigation and
to learn about inquiry (Abrams, Southerland & Evans, 2008).
Just like dealing with differences, teachers also struggle with the implementation of IBSE into their science teaching practice and express a lack of
training in this field (Barron, Finlayson & McLoughlon, 2012; Roehrig & Luft,
2004). Teaching inquiry in a highly diverse classroom could be considered as
the major challenge. The daily practice of science teachers has to be empowered for change in terms of the inclusive demands posed by education policy
(cp. Lloyd, 2010). Science educators seem to be ill-equipped to teach students
with disabilities while special educators are rarely trained to teach science. In
addition, the important collaboration between the two professions appears as
neglected (Villanueva, Taylor, Therrien & Hand, 2012).
Many general education teachers and science education researchers doubt
that the performance of special needs students is sufficient to fulfil the
sophisticated demands of science instruction, e.g., high level thinking, problem solving and inquiry learning (Ellis, 1993; Steele, 2004; Sullivan Palincsar,
Magnusson, Collins & Cutter, 2001; Woodward & Carnine, 1988). From studies of traditional (i.e., no inquiry, text-based) science instruction for example, Carlisle and Changs (1996) three-year longitudinal study of students with
learning disabilities we know that special needs students fare poorly and
express doubts about their capacity to perform successfully in these classes
(Sullivan Palincsar et al., 2001, p. 16). Finkel, Greene, and Rios (2008) ENREF 6
raise concern that inquiry-based learning should not be considered as a panacea for supporting diverse students in becoming scientifically literate.
However, taking the requirement Science for All seriously, science education for students with special needs has to provide equal learning opportunities. Allowing for students with disabilities in the development of
classroom lessons ultimately makes the science class more inclusive. Moreover, it ensures that all students learn about science and become scientifically
literate, which is a stated goal in the National Science Education Standards
(NRC 1996) (Trundle, 2008, p. 80). In addition to this normative statement,
the limited number of empirical studies gives evidence positive for the inclu128
sion of special needs students in carefully scaffolded inquiry-based science

instruction.
PU R P OSE A ND LIM ITAT IONS OF T HIS A RT IC LE

On the basis of recent studies in the fields of science education and special
education this article will show that IBSE can be an appropriate approach
in inclusive settings when it is carefully scaffolded. Evidence-based practices
how to scaffold an inclusive class will be introduced. Most of the research
results arise from control group design studies. The case study presented here
tries to give an in-depth look how two teachers deal with students learning
inquiry-based in an inclusive setting. The teachers aims and priorities, but
also their difficulties and conflicts will be worked out. The first reflective
meeting with the teachers will be presented here where the teachers developed solution approaches together with the researcher.
The case is an urban lower secondary inclusive middle school. The article here focuses on an eighth grade class passing through a three day open
inquiry process. Five of the 20 students are officially diagnosed as having
special needs.
Special educational needs are diagnosed in different areas and support is
provided accordingly in form of extra resources. Key-areas are:
learning capacity and behaviour, especially scholastic learning and
the ability to cope with disability in the learning process;
speech, speaking, the communicative act, handling speech problems;
emotional and social development, experience and self-control, dealing with disturbances, inexperience and behaviour;
intellectual development, handling intellectual retardation;
physical and motor development, dealing with severe disabilities in
movement and with physical handicap;
hearing, auditory perception, the ability to handle a hearing impairment;
vision, eyesight, visual perception, the ability to deal with a vision
impairment;
state of health and state of mind, the ability to cope with a long-term
illness (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education,
2010, para. 14).
simone abels
129
The first four areas and the last one listed are present at the school being in
the focus here. Because of the special needs areas present in the class chosen
for this case study and not least because of the expertise of the author the
article at hand focuses on students with the focal areas of support learning as well as emotional and social development, in other words on students with cognitive and emotional/behaviour disorders. Students with these
needs form one of the biggest groups of the special needs population who are
included in mainstream schools the most compared to learners with other
special needs (Mand, 2009; Villanueva et al., 2012). The inclusion of students
who need support in emotional and social development is seen as the most
challenging though (Meijer, 2010). There are almost no studies about teaching
students with severe disabilities inquiry-based (Courtade, Browder, Spooner
& DiBiase, 2010).
Implications will be drawn for the implementation of IBSE in an inclusive
setting. In addition, the in-depth results can enhance discussions among general and special educators.
As the research project is in the starting phase, only preliminary results can
be reported that have to be analysed more systematically in the future. Contrasting cases have to be found to scrutinise the results like it is conventional in
a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2012; Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Nevertheless, the detailed insight that is possible through this project provides relevant
hints for educators and researchers concerning IBSE and inclusion.
INQU IRY-BA SED SC IENC E EDUC AT ION

FOR ST U DEN T S W IT H SPEC I A L NEEDS
Students with a focal point of support in learning and/or social and emotional
development face several challenges in the science classroom. For example,
science textbooks are often written 2 or 3 years above the actual reading
levels of students with disabilities (Steele, 2004, p. 20). Science vocabulary
can be hard to understand and to use. Class discussions or lectures can be difficult to follow and the presented information hard to reproduce. Mnemonic
strategies have to be developed with the students. Attention and concentration can be fast overburdened. The students can also be challenged to organize
their notes or materials, e.g., while planning or conducting an experiment.
Students with cognitive disorders often perform better in specific tasks than
130
in situations where generalisation and transfer are needed (Steele, 2004).

Scruggs and Mastropieri (2007) found that the psychometric IQ was a strong
predictor for drawing inductive conclusions. Additionally, negative attitudes
can also create difficulties for students with special needs. Because of their
cycle of frustration and failure, they may have trouble staying motivated and
focused on a task (Steele, 2004, p. 20). This can have effects on them establishing reliable relationships. Social skills are a developmental area which
can affect group work (Steele, 2004).
These deficits are the reasons why students with special needs are often
regarded as incapable of doing inquiry. This is understandable reading the list
of abilities the National Research Council claims as necessary to do inquiry
(table 1).
Grades K-4
Grades 5-8
Grades 9-12
Ask a question about objects,

organisms, and events in the
environment.
Identify questions that can be

answered through scientific investigations.
Identify questions and concepts

that guide scientific investigations.
Plan and conduct a simple

investigation.
Design and conduct a scientific

investigation.
Design and conduct scientific

investigations.
Employ simple equipment and

tools to gather data and extend
the senses.
Use appropriate tools and techniques to gather, analyze, and

interpret data.
Use technology and mathematics

to improve investigations and
communications.
Use data to construct a reasonable explanation.
Develop descriptions, explanations,

predictions, and models using
evidence.
Formulate and revise scientific

explanations and models using
logic and evidence.
Think critically and logically to

make the relationships between
evidence and explanations.
Recognize and analyze alternative

explanations and models.
Communicate investigations
and explanations.
Recognize and analyze alternative

explanations and predictions.
Communicate and defend a scientific argument.
Communicate scientific procedures

and explanations.
Use mathematics in all aspects of
scientific inquiry.
table 1 fundamental abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry

(national research council, 2000, p. 19)
Defining the list not as necessary abilities, but as aims in the science classroom, could offer a shift in perspective. On top of that, deficits should rather
simone abels
131
be considered as developmental areas. The core idea of this change in perspective is that the school system has to provide resources and the teachers should
look for strategies and approaches so that students can make learning progressions. It is not the student who must prove to be includable. Inquiry-based
teaching could provide learning opportunities for special needs students to
develop some of the competencies (cp. table 1) and to foster them according to
their needs. However, the positive attitude and substantial education of teachers is extremely relevant to reach this goal (Norman, Caseau & Stefanich, 1998).
The expert group of the European Commission (2007) recommends inquirybased teaching for students across the ability range. There is a limited body of
research on IBSE supporting this claim related to students with cognitive and
emotional/behaviour disorders.
Bay, Staver, Bryan, and Hale (1992) compared direct instruction and discovery teaching in their study in terms of science achievement, the retention
of the achievement, generalisation of science process skills and hindrance of
no handicapped students. Ten students were diagnosed as having cognitive
disorders, six students as having behavioural disorders. All were integrated
in general education classes. The results showed no advantage for one of the
approaches concerning science achievement. But students retention after
two weeks was higher for those who received the discovery instruction (Bay
et al., 1992, p. 567). This is unsurprisingly not the case for the students with
learning disabilities, because of their cognitive pre-conditions. However, the
learning disabled students receiving discovery teaching scored better in the
generalisation test than their counterparts with direct instruction. Against
a common expectation, the achievement of no handicapped children was not
hindered because of the integrated students. This study suggests that discovery learning approaches can be appropriate for students with cognitive and
behavioural disorders; at least they are not obstructive for learning.
McCarthy (2005) compared a science textbook instruction with a handson approach in two classrooms where students with serious emotional disturbances were integrated. The researcher was interested in the effects on
students behaviour and achievement. Concerning achievement, the students
who were taught with the hands-on approach performed significantly higher
in the achievement tests. No difference was observable in terms of student
behaviour.
In the study of Mastropieri, Scruggs, and Butcher (1997) normally achieving students were compared with students with learning disabilities and stu132
dents with mental retardation (assessed by their teachers and IQ-tests) in an

inquiry-based learning environment. Students were coached and prompted
to provide a general rule using inductive thinking working on a physics task
(ibid., p. 9). As expected, the students with learning disabilities scored between
the other two groups of students in the generalisation tasks and needed fewer
coaching than the students with mental retardation, but more coaching than
the normally achieving students. The authors suggest that students with learning disorders can participate and benefit from inquiry-based learning, but need
well-structured support. Ten and more years later and on the basis of many
more investigations the researchers come to similar conclusions. Constructed
and instructed learning approaches have both shown their applicability. The
implementation is always depending on the learning aims strived for which
do not have to be the same for every student. Subject-specific aims should be
different while educational aims should be the same (Hinz, 1996). If inquirybased settings are chosen, students with special needs will need an appropriate amount of coaching (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2007). When instruction is
appropriately presented and modified, students with learning disabilities are
very successful at mastering science content (Brigham, Scruggs & Mastropieri,
2011). The case study of Sullivan Palincsar et al. (2001) contributes to understand the learning opportunities students get when participating in a guided
inquiry-based setting. All students, also those with special needs, made significant learning gains when scaffolded by teachers with advanced strategies, i.e.,
(a) monitoring and facilitating student thinking, (b) supporting print literacy,
and (c) improving working in groups (Sullivan Palincsar et al., 2001, p. 24).
Two reviews and a meta-analysis about studies in this field summarise
that IBSE is only benefiting for students with special needs when it is carefully structured and scaffolded (Scruggs, Mastropieri & Okolo, 2008; Therrien,
Taylor, Hosp, Kaldenberg & Gorsh, 2011; Villanueva et al., 2012).
One strategy of scaffolding is to implement inquiry-based learning successively to give students the chance to acquire the needed skills (see table 1)
stepwise, thoroughly and without excessive demands. This procedure allows
them to develop a feeling of autonomy and competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
It is important that learners develop basic learning techniques for autonomous study. Those have to be extended in class step by step (Wodzinski &
Wodzinski, 2009, p. 146).
To fulfil this demand in school the levels of inquiry-based learning can be
applied (Abrams et al., 2008; Schwab, 1964). The higher the level of inquiry,
simone abels
133
the higher the level of responsibility placed on students. The explicit instruction of the teacher is gradually reduced with each level (table 2).
Source of the question
Data collection methods
Interpretation of results
Level 0: Verification
Given by teacher
Given by teacher
Given by teacher
Level 1: Structured
Given by teacher
Given by teacher
Open to student
Level 2: Guided
Given by teacher
Open to student
Open to student
Level 3: Open
Open to student
Open to student
Open to student
table 2 the levels of inquiry

(blanchard et al., 2010, p. 581)
Students with no or little experience should start with an inquiry level 0

and acquire more and more competencies stepwise to work successfully on
the other levels. Instruction should gradually and systematically move from
Level 0 activities with the ultimate goal being some Level 3 activities
(Lederman, Southerland & Akerson, 2008, p. 32).
However, in special education level 3 is not automatically the optimal level
to be achieved for every student (Abels, 2012a). The levels should be applied
appropriately in terms of context, e.g. aim, situation, students pre-conditions
and experience, topic, etc. Some students need a lot of structure and support.
Having implemented a set of tools on level 0 and having enhanced the competence to draw conclusions on level 1, level 2 is often the most appropriate
level in the long run offering a mixture of adapted structuring and openness.
A balance between openness and structure has shown to be effective for students with cognitive and emotional/behaviour disorders (Werning & LtjeKlose, 2007). That is why Scruggs et al. (2008) recommend guided inquiry on
the basis of their studies. The following table shows a list of aims for each
level which can be focused level by level. Developing the skills successively
and in teamwork is supposed to increase students feeling of autonomy, relatedness and competence (cp. Deci & Ryan, 2000).
The core skill to do open inquiry is being able to ask scientific questions.
This is regarded as a complex and challenging task. Students have to be enabled to ask scientific questions to do open inquiry. Hofstein, Navon, Kipnis,
and Mamlok-Naaman (2005) distinguish low-order and high-order questions.
[H]igh-level-type questions () are questions that can be answered only by
further investigation, such as conducting another experiment or looking for
more information on the Internet or in chemistry literature. These ques134
Level 0
Additionally
on Level 1
Additionally
on Level 2
Additionally
on Level 3
To be acquainted with devices (pH meter, thermometer, )

To conduct certain practices (to titrate, to filtrate,)
To follow safety guidelines
To follow descriptions of experiments, etc.
To observe
To document observations and interpret them in the team
Apply knowledge to come to conclusions and judgements
To justify conclusions with evidence-based arguments
To present and discuss results, etc.
To hypothesise
To plan and conduct experiments
To consider influencing factors, e.g., to decide about quantities,
devices etc. and justify decisions
To control variables
To justify the experimental design
To match results with hypotheses
To change the experimental design reasonably, etc.
Feeling
of
Autonomy,
Relatedness
and
Competence
To ask scientific questions

To take responsibility for the whole investigation process, etc.
table 3 aims of inquiry learning levelwise
tions are more complicated, and the student has to think critically about the
research to be able to pose them (ibid., p. 8). Question stems can help students
to phrase questions which do not just ask for facts (Neber & Anton, 2008).
There are more strategies of scaffolding which can support inquiry learning.
These strategies are mentioned in the following list with further reading advice.
Teaching mnemonic strategies is effective as students can recall vocabulary and thus have more capacity to learn science concepts (Scruggs &
Mastropieri, 2000; Scruggs et al., 2008; Therrien et al., 2011).
Spooner, Knight, Browder, and Smith (2012) identified task analytic
instruction with systematic prompting and feedback as well as time delay
as evidence-based practices to support students with disabilities (cp. also
Browder et al., 2012).
Graphic organizers improve the factual comprehension and vocabulary
knowledge of intermediate and secondary students with LD [learning disability] in science (Dexter, Park & Hughes, 2011, p. 210). They also facilitate longer maintenance of scientific knowledge (ibid.).
Peer-tutoring has shown to be very successful in supporting students with
cognitive disorders (Jimenez, Browder, Spooner & Dibiase, 2012; Scruggs &
Mastropieri, 2007).
simone abels
135
Text enhancements, vocabulary learning and other language strategies

support a diverse student group in comprehending a science concept and
conducting an inquiry (Bakken, Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1997; Markic &
Abels, 2013; Mason & Hedin, 2011). Word and picture symbol cards were
also shown to be supportive (Browder et al., 2012)
Targeted questioning by teachers or peers helps students to draw inferences and come to higher levels of comprehension compared to just providing them the knowledge (Mastropieri et al., 1997).
Differentiated materials enable students of different achievement levels to
work on the same topic (Abels & Markic, 2013; Tobin & Tippett, 2013).
Inquiry-based learning environments can be varied in length, complexity, task,
responsibility etc. Groups of students can do parallel work on different levels
supported by different strategies (Abels, 2012a). The teacher can provide material, guiding or targeting questions, hint cards etc. which can be used by students who need support. Using the provided help reduces the openness of inquiry,
but allows everyone to participate in the task. These aspects make inquiry-based
learning suitable for students with different cognitive and affective pre-conditions. Additionally, general education students are not hindered in their learning (Bay et al., 1992). Even more, what is good for students with special needs is
beneficial for all students in the (science) classroom (Meijer, 2010; Steele, 2004).
IBSE IN A N INC LUSI V E C L A SSROOM

A C A SE ST UDY R EP ORT
The European Agency determined seven factors which are crucial for inclusive education in the secondary setting. A combination of factors makes a setting even more inclusive (Meijer, 2005, 2010). The factors are
Co-operative teaching (i.e., cooperation between teachers in- and outside
of school),
Co-operative learning (i.e., peer tutoring),
Collaborative problem-solving (i.e., clear class rules and behaviour strategies agreed with the students),
Heterogeneous grouping (i.e., differentiation and absence of homogeneous
grouping),
136
Effective teaching (i.e., systematic monitoring, assessment, evaluation

and feedback, individual education plans),
Home area system (i.e., two or three classrooms per learning group with a
consistent team of teachers), and
Alternative ways of learning (i.e., learning to learn and teaching students
to learn autonomously).
For the case study presented here an urban lower secondary school was chosen
that fulfilled more than one of these factors. The school is an inclusive middle school from grade five to eight. In every class four to five students with
special needs are officially integrated. Extra resources are provided in terms
of an integration teacher. Help by volunteers (teacher students, retirees, other
guests) is always welcome. About 20 students are grouped into one class. Every
student is seen as having particular learning needs. Parents choose the school
because of the effective support every student receives, not only the students
with diagnosed special needs. There are consistent teacher teams responsible
for one age-group level. Systematic monitoring and evaluation are organised
in cooperation with the education authority and the university. Alternative
ways of learning and assessment are established, also in science (MinneropHaeler, 2013).
The most innovative approach to establish an inclusive learning culture in
science is a Lernwerkstatt. The concept was originally developed by Karin Ernst
in Berlin, Germany, in 1980. It is mainly based on the New York workshop
centre developed by Lillian Weber (Ernst, 1996; Weber, 1977). As there is no
appropriate translation the term Lernwerkstatt will be used in the following.
A Lernwerkstatt is described as a room where learners encounter stimulating
phenomena, objects and materials which are supposed to trigger questions in
their own field of interest () to start immediately with an inquiry (Puddu,
Keller & Lembens, 2012, p. 154). Lernwerkstatt can be classified as open inquiry
which is accompanied by coaches who scaffold students inquiry learning process (Hagstedt, 2004; Zocher, 2000).
The inclusive middle school which is in the focus here has an own room
designed as a Lernwerkstatt where students have access to inspiring materials,
objects and phenomena (Minnerop-Haeler, 2013). Every class in the school has
one Lernwerkstatt per year lasting three days. Given are the topic and scenery of
materials and phenomena which encourage the students to find their own questions and hypotheses. This classifies the setting as an open inquiry approach.
simone abels
137
figure 1 scenery with materials in the lernwerkstatt light and colour
Prescribed topics are, for example, light and colour, water, insects etc. (figure 1).
Together with the coaches the students find a question, plan and conduct experiments and document their ideas and observations in a lab journal. Coaches
are the Lernwerkstatt teachers, the classroom teachers who join the Lernwerkstatt, higher education students or assistant teachers. At the end a festivity is
arranged by the students to present their own results (Minnerop-Haeler, 2013).
The two teachers leading the Lernwerkstatt were desirous of reflecting
the open inquiry setting to make the learning even more effective for the
students according to the aims of inquiry learning (see table 3 above). This
positive teacher attitude is one of the success metrics of the school (cp. Norman et al., 1998). To have a basis for the reflection, all classes working in the
Lernwerkstatt this school year were and will be videotaped. Additionally, the
teachers wore audiotapes to record their scaffolding. Student interviews and
the lab journal will function as a third and fourth database. The reflection
of the video scenes is in the focus in this paper. Video sequences were chosen
by the author and reflected together with the teachers to develop alternative
approaches during the Lernwerkstatt so that the students autonomous learning
can be improved.
T H E V IDEO SC EN E S
The research project is currently in a starting phase. First rounds of data
collection and analysis have started in accordance with a Grounded Theory
approach (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). The article at hand focuses on the first
reflective meeting with the two Lernwerkstatt teachers.
138
figure 2 clustering of students questions
Two video scenes were chosen for this meeting recording the beginning
of the Lernwerkstatt where students are supposed to find their research question. The topic was light and colour in grade eight who had Lernwerkstatt for
the third time. 20 students of one class participated in this Lernwerkstatt, ten
boys and ten girls. Five students officially had special needs, three girls and
two boys, reaching from severe to mild disabilities, from mental retardation
to autism to ADHD and emotional/behavioural issues. But there are more students with special needs although not diagnosed. According to the teachers
every student has particular learning needs. Four coaches were present to
support the students: the two leading teachers, the classroom teacher and a
school assistant. The researcher and her diploma student were also fixed with
scaffolding two groups of students. Every coach except the diploma student
knew the class from other lessons to a different extent. One of the leading
teachers is the science teacher in this class.
The first video scene selected by the researcher shows how the students
presented all the questions they framed after walking through the scenery
of materials and phenomena. The teachers clustered the questions among
umbrella terms (green cards, see figure 2).
Each student phrased between one and about 15 questions. The students
phrased, for example, the following questions:2
How does a laser pointer operate?
How far does reflected light go?
Can light be transformed to electricity?
2
All translations were made as close as possible to the original wording.

simone abels
139
Why are some creatures attracted by light?

Why is light so important?
How fast is light?
What would happen if the sun had another colour?
Why is the world so colourful?
Who discovered the colours?
And many more
The second video scene shows which topic or questions the students finally
chose and how the decision process ran. Topics respectively questions chosen
were, for example:

What is a rainbow?
Gain of energy out of light
The colour blue
How do colours affect us?
Reflection of light with mirrors
To build a kaleidoscope
To dye food
()
These two scenes were chosen for a first reflective meeting with the two
teachers, because the phase of phrasing and finding scientific questions is
regarded as extremely challenging, and at the same time crucial for starting
with an open inquiry (cp. Hofstein et al., 2005).
Both phases, the collection and clustering of questions and the selection of
a topic, had conducive and obstructive aspects for students learning processes.
From the researchers point of view fostering elements were the following:
Students phrased questions self-dependently,
The interest of the students was pivotal,
Some questions were already high-order questions which was made
visible,
There were a lot of why-questions making students conceptions explicit,
Exciting questions were posed which were all asserted and appreciated,
The appreciative attitude of the teachers,
The growing collection of questions on the wall as a joint project,
140
The possibility to learn from each other and to get aware of each others
interests,
To divide into groups autonomously, and
To choose a question/topic by oneself.
From the researchers perspective obstructive aspects were, for example, that
the phase of clustering questions was very long (>20 minutes) demanding a lot
of attention and patience from the students. Furthermore, the mental work
was actually done by the teachers by clustering the questions on the wall and
finding umbrella terms. Only one of the students was active at the moment
of presentation. The others tried to stay calm or whispered with their neighbours. The students have to be praised for their perseverance, but had to be
exhorted from time to time by the teachers:
T1:3 I think its a pity that you dont really listen and just watch there what
questions people found.
T2: I believe that they are so enthusiastic about their questions and busy
with them, you are allowed to tell them immediately, ok?
The aim of the phase of presenting questions and the added value for the students stayed unclear or implicit, especially because the majority of the students
chose a topic later on to work further with instead of their original questions.
Some of the students questions were not even allowed to be chosen but it is not
explicitly said why. Additionally, it was unclear how many students could work
together on the same topic. A girl putting her hand up first asked how many
students could work together in one group. Teacher 1 said, We will see. This
caused problems which will be shown in the following videotaped and transcribed plenum conversation. The outtake shows the parallel negotiation about
topics and group size based on implicit rules.
Sm1: I would like to with Sm2, Sm3 and Sm4, well//
T1: //in a group of four
Sm1: //the topic to make construct a laser.
3 The leading teachers are abbreviated with T and a number. Students are abbreviated with S, m for
male and f for female and a number. The school assistant is indicated by Ass., while the classroom teacher
is abbreviated with CT. Emphasised words are underlined, breaks are indicated by (-), one hyphen per
second. Double slashes show that persons cut in.
simone abels
141
Sm2: to construct a laser

T1: Well, in a group of four, what do you want now, my question is, do you
want to construct a laser?
Sm2: Yes. We wanted to see ourselves//
T1: Eh, I tell you immediately, doesnt work.
Sm2: We want to see, well, how it is constructed and, well, we wanted to
rebuild a laser ourselves.
T1: You are not able to do it here. Thats not working. That that doesnt
work by any means. That doesnt work. Ok, I can tell you immediately,
that doesnt work. To construct a laser pointer doesnt work.
Sm5: I have a question.
T1: Yes?
Sm5: I have a question. Why does this not work?
T1: Because we do not not have (--) things for this.
Ass.: No mirrors, no lenses, no strong light//
T1: //That doesnt work.
CT: If you do not know what you are doing, it can blow up in somebodys
face//
T1: //doesnt work. Well, building a laser pointer doesnt work by any
means. Ok? So. Think about it, please, ok? Sf1?
Sf1: Eh, us four, we wanted to do the topic rainbow.
L2: Ok, guys, you know from last year, four people are not working.
CT: And above all, yes, there is only laughter and//
T1: //No, well, two people rainbow is ok. But four, or two times two different groups, yes, but a group of four surely doesnt work.
The aim of the reflective meeting was to see which conducive and obstructive
aspects the teachers would identify as well as to develop alternatives together
for the processes of presenting and choosing research questions. This reflective process is organised in accordance with the ALACT model (figure 3). Step
1 was videotaped, step 2, 3 and 4 were conducted during the meeting. Step 5 is
supposed to happen during the next Lernwerkstatt. Reflection is seen as a key
element for improvement of and for lasting changes in teaching practice as
well as congruent teaching (Abels, 2012b; Swennen, Lunenberg & Korthagen,
2008; Zeichner & Liston, 1996).
142
Awareness of
essential aspects
Looking back on
the action
Creating alternative
methods of action
Trial
Action
figure 3 the alact model describing the intended process of reflection

(korthagen, loughran & russell, 2006, p. 1028)
T H E R EF LEC T I V E DI A L OGUE W IT H T HE T E AC HER S

The reflective conversation with the teachers was intended to be a dialogue,
not an examination. It lasted 102 minutes and took place three months after
the Lernwerkstatt. The teachers expressed how helpful it is to see oneself with
a distant view on a video. Before watching the videos, the teachers were asked
to exchange what mostly returned to mind. Among other things, they highlighted two groups of male students with their research projects and the variety of questions presented especially by the girls.
Afterwards the first video scene about clustering the students questions
was watched almost in full length (>20 minutes). One teacher (T2) said right
after the video started that this phase was one of the most exciting ones, but
also the most difficult one. After three-fourths of the students were seen presenting their questions, she realised:
T2: This is really a long phase that demands a lot from the children. To
listen. I do not really have another idea how one could shorten it.
4
R: Shall I stop it [the video scene] here or do you want to watch it until the
end?
T2: As far as Im concerned stop.
4
R = Researcher.
simone abels
143
The teachers were asked to express their first impression or feeling. Although
they were concerned about the length of the phase, they emphasised the
importance of this clustering. They assumed that the students realised what
their classmates said despite mumbling. Beyond that they assumed that
the mumbling students talked about the presented questions. The teachers
pointed out that the exchange between the students was essential. Additionally, from the teachers view it was important to learn to listen to each other.
A conflict between appreciation and structuring occurred here. The teachers
strived for valuing the ideas of every student, but felt the need for shortening
the phase which was perceived as being contradictory for their internal aim
of appreciation.
A first alternative approach they came to think about soon is that the
students could cluster themselves and write the umbrella terms on the green
cards. But this would even prolong the process of clustering. The researcher
contributes a new perspective:
R:
What I thought about is who is really active in this phase, who really
has to think.
T2: Well, us two.
R: (laughs) Exactly. A lot of work is done by you two. You cluster and you
write the umbrella terms.
T1: This means to involve the students here more.
T2: Yes, that they get an assignment. That they get an assignment.
R: Yes, the students who sit in the circle//
T2: //do not have an assignment.
()
T2: They really do not have an assignment. That blows my mind.
The teachers developed more and more ideas how to change this phase, e.g.,
one student could read his/her questions and two others would join the student and cluster the cards so that three students could participate actively.
The researcher suggested the idea to present the questions not student-wise,
but topic-wise. One student would read aloud a question and everyone would
have to pay attention if he/she wrote a similar one that had to be pinned on
the wall. The teachers picked up on this idea and developed a whole scenario
how they could instruct the students during the next Lernwerkstatt enabling
them to do the clustering themselves. Students would have to get up more
144
often and pin their questions on the wall. Teacher 1 mentioned that this benefits especially the ADHD students.
This was the only time the teachers mentioned the students with special
needs. They were mostly concerned about all students and how to handle the
group as a whole.
After the approving reaction of the teachers to the first ideas the researcher
mentioned another aspect.
R:
T1:
What I also thought about what one really writes on the green cards.
The students showed a remarkable performance (). They almost all
wrote questions.
And we just slapped a headline. (all are laughing)
The teachers got aware of the fact that the green cards represented topics,
not the students original questions. Accordingly, teacher 1 suggested phrasing
questions instead of headlines on the green cards. She further developed the
idea to leave the cards blank and that the students should develop the core
question per cluster in groups. A coach could already scaffold this part of framing the core question with a group of students who are interested in working
on the associated inquiry. The teachers summed up that this change would
lead to higher participation and self-dependency for the students not decreasing the appreciation. The gained time could be used to discuss with the students how they would proceed with planning and conducting an experiment.
The researcher emphasised the released resources for the teachers who could
concentrate more on scaffolding the process instead of doing the mental work.
These considerations led to look at the next video scene about the selection of a topic. The teachers confirmed again that the students talked about
topics, not questions. Teacher 1 said that she is stressed out by the boys discussing about the laser pointer. Teacher 2 expressed her helplessness how to
scaffold the students to find a question. The phase was perceived as so important that it caused a high stress level. The researcher phrased her admiration for the teachers management of this difficult phase as in the end every
student chose a topic and was able to work. Teacher 1 realised that the new
ideas developed in the reflective conversation before could make the selection
phase much easier.
Subsequently, the researcher formulated her observation about implicit
rules. She perceived it as unclear which topics were decent and which group
simone abels
145
size was allowed. Both teachers agreed. They had certain implicit ideas and
experiences how to proceed with some of the suggested topics. They did not
expect the boys idea to build a laser and foresaw a risk of injury. The teachers discovered a contradiction. Usually, in the classroom laser pointers are
forbidden. In the Lernwerkstatt scenery laser pointers were exposed, but to
work with them how the students intended to do was forbidden. Thus, it was
not understandable for the students why they were not allowed to choose this
inquiry as they were used to and appreciated on their own admission to
work self-dependently in the Lernwerkstatt. They opposed the restriction when
Sm5 launched a discussion: I have a question. Why does this not work? (see
transcript above).
With other groups of students there was no discussion about the topic
although it was not precise and although more than two persons wanted to
work together. This happened especially with groups of girls and with a group
of girls with mental retardation:
T1: Sf2, please.
Sf2: Eh, we want, we want//
CT: // Sf3 and
Sf2: Sf3 and Sf4 on the colour blue
T1: The colour blue, ok
The researchers hypothesis is that the teachers know the special needs students and had ideas in mind how to proceed with them during the practical
phase, mostly focusing on painting and crafting. Furthermore, they knew
which groups of girls can be trusted to work in bigger groups than two. These
hypotheses have to be further researched.
Another topic the researcher introduced dealt with researchable questions. During a discussion about the laser teacher 2 appealed to two boys transcribed from the video scene:
T2: I would like to say that you when you start with the group work, you
have to think about which questions do you want to pursue and what
can we inquire here and how eh do you really have a topic to fill two
days of work.
CT: Otherwise it is such a big topic, yes?
T2: You have to think about that if that works. I put your names here and
146
then it is, have you thought a little bit more about it or are you only
fascinated by the devices. You have to think about that. Yes? Are there
enough possibilities for you right now and here to do research with our
resources.
Sm5 and Sm6:Yes.
T2: Ok. (puts the names on the board)
The teachers perceived that they let the students do inquiry, but there was not
an opportunity to learn something about inquiry explicitly (cp. aims according to Abrams et al., 2008; see above). They started to develop a list of criteria
about good questions that could lead to further inquiries which were realisable with the prerequisites in the school and asked the researcher to provide
some hints from the literature. They made suggestions how to integrate this
meta-discussion into the Lernwerkstatt process.
Finally, teacher 2 summarised three alterations to be implemented next
time:
T2: When we prepare the insects [next Lernwerkstatt topic] then we will
talk about what researchable questions are in school. I like that. To
mind the groups, the group formation. And try out this thing during
the cluster round. I want to try these three things. Those will be effective, I think.
The researcher and the teachers noted that this dialogue was very intensive,
but very effective as well. They agreed on meeting again after the changes
were implemented (step 5 of the ALACT model, see figure 3).
Most of the ideas for change were initiated by the researcher who had
time to prepare the session. The teachers captured the suggestions and developed them further. Next time the teachers should also watch the selected
videos before the meeting and note their ideas beforehand.
CONC LUSIONS
Most remarkable is that the students with cognitive and behaviour/emotional
disorders were not identifiable during the Lernwerkstatt. They worked in different groups of students and were fully included. Also the girls with severe
simone abels
147
mental disabilities could participate in this setting. Because of the teachers

experience and the possibility of intensive coaching they could also work on
topics in the field of light and colour. However, it was obvious that the
teachers demanded more specific topics or questions of the general education
students and students with mild disabilities. They did not treat the latter differently because of their special needs status. The Lernwerkstatt is a setting
that facilitates equal learning opportunities for all students.
However, in terms of learning to do inquiry and learning about inquiry the
learning opportunities could be improved. The teachers developed together
with the researcher three important steps to increase the possible learning
gain for all students:
1. Students will cluster their questions topic-wise instead of teachers doing
the mental work. The students are supposed to find core questions instead
of umbrella terms.
2. There will be clear rules for group formation.
3. A criteria list for researchable questions will be developed and discussed
with the students.
After the implementation of these actions there will be another reflective
meeting to question the success. It has to be evaluated if the level of appreciation which is so important for the teachers can stay comparably high while
increasing the structuring elements.
One major observation is that the teachers struggle more with the implementation of IBSE than with aspects of inclusion. There could be a relation
to their aims which are more on the educational side than on the subjectspecific side.
The present research project will be extended by analysing the Lernwerkstatt of other classes, the regular science course as well as other cases to give
more detailed insight in the field of inclusive science education.
R EF ER ENC E S
Abels, S. (2012a). Including Students with Special Needs in Inquiry-based Science Education What Can We Learn from Special Needs Education? In S.
Markic, D. di Fuccia, I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Issues of Heterogeneity and Cultural
148
Diversity in Science Education and Science Education Research. A collection of invited

papers inspired by the 21st symposium on chemical and science education (pp. 163-174).
Aachen: Shaker.
Abels, S. (2012b). Reflexionskompetenz von Chemie- und Physikdidaktikstudierenden im bildungstheoretischen Kontext. In S. Bernholt (Ed.), Konzepte fachdidaktischer Strukturierung fr den Unterricht. Gesellschaft fr die Didaktik der Chemie
und Physik. Jahrestagung in Oldenburg 2011 (Vol. 32, pp. 51-64). Mnster: LIT.
Abels, S., & Markic, S. (2013). Umgang mit Vielfalt neue Perspektiven im Chemieunterricht. Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht - Chemie, 24(135), 2-6.
Abrams, E., Southerland, S. A., & Evans, C. (2008). Introduction. Inquiry
in the classroom: Identifying Necessary Components of a Useful Definition.
In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the classroom. Realities and Opportunities (pp. xi-xlii). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age
Publishing.
Bakken, J. P., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Reading Comprehension of Expository Science Material and Students with Learning Disabilities: a Comparison of Strategies. The Journal of Special Education, 31(3), 300-324.
Barron, L., Finlayson, O., & McLoughlon, E. (2012). The Views of Preservice and
Inservice Teachers on IBSE. Paper presented at the ESTABLISH SMEC 2012. Teaching at the Heart of Learning, Dublin, Ireland.
Bay, M., Staver, J. R., Bryan, T., & Hale, J. B. (1992). Science Instruction for
the Mildly Handicapped: Direct Instruction versus Discovery Teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 555-570.
Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D.,
Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is Inquiry Possible in Light of
Accountability?: A Quantitative Comparison of the Relative Effectiveness of
Guided Inquiry and Verification Laboratory Instruction. Science Education,
94(4), 577-616.
Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2011). Science Education
and Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
26(4), 223-232.
Browder, D. M., Trela, K., Courtade, G. R., Jimenez, B. A., Knight, V., &
Flowers, C. (2012). Teaching Mathematics and Science Standards to Students
With Moderate and Severe Developmental Disabilities. The Journal of Special
Education, 46(1), 26-35.
Charmaz, K. (2012). The Power and Potential of Grounded Theory. Medical Sociology online, 6(3), 2-15.
simone abels
149
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
Courtade, G. R., Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & DiBiase, W. (2010). Training
Teachers to Use an Inquiry-Based Task Analysis to Teach Science to Students
with Moderate and Severe Disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45(3), 378-399.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The What and Why of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs
and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Dexter, D. D., Park, Y. J., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). A Meta-Analytic Review of
Graphic Organizers and Science Instruction for Adolescents with Learning
Disabilities: Implications for the Intermediate and Secondary Science Classroom. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 204-213.
Ellis, E. S. (1993). Integrative Strategy Instruction: A Potential Model for Teaching Content Area Subjects to Adolescents with Learning Disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 26(6), 358-383.
Ernst, K. (1996). Den Fragen der Kinder Raum geben. Die Grundschulzeitschrift (98),
40-45.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2007).
Special Needs Education. Country Data. Austria. Retrieved from http://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/AUSTRIA-SNE.pdf.
Identification of special educational needs - Germany. Retrieved from http://www.
european-agency.org/country-information/germany/national-overview/
identification-of-special-educational-needs.
Special Needs Education. Country Data. Germany. Retrieved from http://www.european-agency.org/country-information/germany/german-files/GERMANYSNE.pdf.
European Commission. (2007). Science Education Now: A Renewed Pedagogy for the
Future of Europe. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/
document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-education_en.pdf.
Finkel, L., Greene, K., & Rios, J. (2008). Accomodating Student Diversity
Within Inquiry. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in
the Classroom. Realities and Opportunities (pp. 91-139). Charlotte, North Carolina:
IAP.
Hagstedt, H. (2004). Fordernde Lernorte: Lernwerksttten. Die Grundschulzeitschrift, 18(171), 48-50.
150
Hinz, A. (1996). Zieldifferentes Lernen in der Schule. Die Deutsche Schule, 88(3),
263-279.
Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing Students Ability to Ask More and Better Questions Resulting from
Inquiry-Type Chemistry Laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
00(00), 1-16.
Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & Dibiase, W. (2012). Inclusive
Inquiry Science Using Peer-Mediated Embedded Instruction for Students with
Moderate Intellectual Disability. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 301-317.
Korthagen, F. A. J., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 22(8), 1020-1041.
Krell, G., Riedmller, B., Sieben, B., & Vinz, D. (2007). Einleitung - Diversity
Studies als integrierende Forschungsrichtung. In G. Krell, B. Riedmller, B.
Sieben & D. Vinz (Eds.), Diversity Studies. Grundlagen und disziplinre Anstze (pp.
7-16). Frankfurt a. M., New York: Campus.
Lederman, N. G., Southerland, S. A., & Akerson, V. L. (2008). Students
Knowledge and Skill with Inquiry. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland & P. Silva
(Eds.), Inquiry in the Classroom. Realities and Opportunities (pp. 3-38). Charlotte,
North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.
Lloyd, C. (2002). Developing and changing practice in special educational needs
through critically reflective action research: a case study. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 17(2), 109-127.
Lloyd, C. (2010). Developing and changing practice in special educational needs
through critically reflective action research: a case study. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 17(2), 109-127.
Mand, J. (2009). Zur Integration von Kindern und Jugendlichen mit sogenannter Lernbehinderung [On the Integration of Children and Youths with a
so-called Learning Disability]. In H. Eberwein & S. Knauer (Eds.), Handbuch
Integrationspdagogik. Kinder mit und ohne Beeintrchtigung lernen gemeinsam (7 ed.,
pp. 360-369). Weinheim und Basel: Beltz.
Markic, S., & Abels, S. (2013). Die Fachsprache der Chemie. Ein gemeinsames
Anliegen von heterogenen Klassen. Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht - Chemie,
24(135), 10-14.
Mason, L. H., & Hedin, L. R. (2011). Reading Science Text: Challenges for Students with Learning Disabilities and Considerations for Teachers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 214-222.
simone abels
151
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Butcher, K. (1997). How Effective is

Inquiry Learning for Students with Mild Disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 31, 199-211.
McCarthy, C. B. (2005). Effects of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching
versus a textbook approach for students with disabilities. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 42(3), 245-263.
Meijer, C. J. W. (2005). Integrative und inklusive Unterrichtspraxis im Sekundarschulbereich. Zusammenfassender Bericht. Retrieved from http://www.european-agency.
org/publications/ereports/inclusive-education-and-classroom-practice-insecondary-education/iecp_secondary_de.pdf.
Meijer, C. J. W. (2010). Special Needs Education in Europe: Inclusive Policies and
Practices. Zeitschrift fr Inklusion, 4(2). Retrieved from http://www.inklusiononline.net/index.php/inklusion-online/article/view/136/136.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future.
Retrieved from http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/
Beyond%202000.pdf.
Minnerop-Haeler, L. (2013). Die Lernwerkstatt Donaustadt. Ein Beispiel fr
gelebte Inklusion. Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht - Chemie, 24(135), 36-39.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Retrieved
from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962&page=20.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education
Standards. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Neber, H., & Anton, M. (2008). Promoting Pre-experimental Activities in
Highschool Chemistry: Focusing on the role of students epistemic questions.
International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1801-1821.
Norman, K., Caseau, D., & Stefanich, G. P. (1998). Teaching Students with
Disabilities in Inclusive Science Classrooms: Survey Results. Science Education,
82, 127-146.
OECD. (2006). Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy. A Framework for
PISA 2006. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/35/37464175.pdf.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What Makes a School Successful? Resources, Policies and
Practices (Volume IV). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091559-en.
Puddu, S., Keller, E., & Lembens, A. (2012). E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA
2011 Conference: Science learning and Citizenship. Part 12 (co-ed. D. Psillos & R. M. Sperandeo). In C. Bruguire, A. Tiberghien & P. Clment (Eds.),
ESERA 2011 Conference (pp. 153-159). Lyon, France: European Science Education
Research Association.
152
Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3-24.
Schwab, J. J. (1964). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F.
Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (3 ed., pp. 3-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2000). The Effectiveness of Mnemonic
Instruction for Students with Learning and Behavior Problems: An Update
and Research Synthesis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10(2-3), 163-173.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2007). Science Learning in Special Education:
The Case for Constructed Versus Instructed Learning. Exceptionality, 15(2), 57-74.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Okolo, C. M. (2008). Science and Social
Studies for Students With Disabilities. Focus on Exeptional Children, 41(2), 1-24.
Sliwka, A. (2010). From homogeneity to diversity in German education. In OECD
(Ed.), Educating Teachers for Diversity: Meeting the Challenge (pp. 205-217): OECD Publishing.
Spooner, F., Knight, V. F., Browder, D. M., & Smith, B. R. (2012). EvidenceBased Practice for Teaching Academics to Students With Severe Developmental Disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33(6), 374-387.
Steele, M. (2004). Teaching Science to Students With Learning Problems in the
Elementary Classroom. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children
and Youth, 49(1), 19-21.
Sullivan Palincsar, A., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M., & Cutter, J.
(2001). Making Science Accessible to All: Results of a Design Experiment in
Inclusive Classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(1), 15-32.
Swennen, A., Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, F. A. J. (2008). Preach what you
teach! Teacher educators and congruent teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory
and Practice, 14(5-6), 531-542.
Therrien, W. J., Taylor, J. C., Hosp, J. L., Kaldenberg, E. R., & Gorsh, J.
(2011). Science Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities: A MetaAnalysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 188-203.
Tobin, R., & Tippett, C. (2013). Possibilities and Potential Barriers: Learning to
Plan for Differentiated Instruction in Elementary Science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-21.
Trundle, K. C. (2008). Inquiry-Based Science Instruction for Students with Disabilities. In J. A. Luft, R. L. Bell & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as Inquiry in
the Secondary Setting (pp. 79-85). Arlington, Virginia: NSTApress.
simone abels
153
UNESCO. (2005). Guidelines for Inclusion: Ensuring Access to Education for All. Retrieved
from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001402/140224e.pdf.
United Nations. (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml.
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/
convoptprot-e.pdf.
United Nations & Ministry of Education and Science Spain. (1994). The
Salamanca Statement and Framework for Special Needs Education. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF.
Villanueva, M. G., Taylor, J., Therrien, W., & Hand, B. (2012). Science education for students with special needs. Studies in Science Education, 48(2), 187-215.
Weber, L. (1977). An Approach to Natural Materials. In R. Dropkin (Ed.), The
Teacher as Learner (pp. 28-32). New York: City College Workshop Center.
Werning, R., & Ltje-Klose, B. (2007). Entdeckendes Lernen. In U. Heimlich
& F. Wember (Eds.), Didaktik des Unterrichts im Frderschwerpunkt Lernen. Ein Handbuch fr Studium und Praxis (pp. 149-162). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Wodzinski, R., & Wodzinski, C. T. (2009). Differences Between Students - Differences in Instruction? How to Make Physics Instruction Effective for All
Students. In T. Tajmel & K. Starl (Eds.), Science Education Unlimited. Approaches
to Equal Opportunities in Learning Science (pp. 137-147). Mnster, New York: Waxmann.
Woodward, J. P., & Carnine, D. W. (1988). Antecedent Knowledge and Intelligent Computer Assisted Instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(3), 131-139.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective Teaching. An Introduction.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zocher, U. (2000). Entdeckendes Lernen lernen. Zur praktischen Umsetzung eines pdagogischen Konzepts in Unterricht und Lehrerfortbildung. Donauwrth: Auer.
*
154
NO T E S ON CON T R IBU T OR S
Simone Abels has been a postdoc at the University of Vienna, Austria, in the
field of chemistry education since 2011. She graduated in special needs education and did her PhD in chemistry education at the University of Hamburg,
Germany. Her research interests are inquiry-based science education, diversity and inclusion, teacher education and reflection.
Ron Blonder is a senior researcher in the Department of Science Teaching of
the Weizmann Institute of Science, in Israel. She received her B.Sc (summa cum
laude, 1993) and her Ph.D in chemistry in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
She is engage in professional development of chemistry teachers and research
in Science Education. Her goal is to promote the modernization of both chemistry contents and chemistry teaching pedagogies by promoting professional
development and interactions within the community of chemistry teachers.
Ingo Eilks FRSC is full professor in chemistry education of the Institute for
Science Education at the University of Bremen.
Nicole Garner, MEd, studied chemistry and mathematics at the University
of Bremen. She is now a PhD student of the Institute for Science Education at
the University of Bremen.
Sarah M. Hayes MRSC is the Education, Training and Outreach Officer for
the Synthesis and Solid State Pharmaceutical Centre based at the University
of Limerick.
Avi Hofstein is an Emeritus professor at the department of Science Teaching of
the Weizmann Institute of Science, in Israel. He was head of the chemistry group
and head of department. Among his research interest are: learning in science
laboratories, making chemistry more relevant and curriculum development.
Dvora Katchevich is a postdoc of the Department of Science teaching at
the Weizmann Institute of Science, in Israel. She is conducting continuous
professional development workshops for chemistry teachers and follows their
157
development. Among her research interest are: Science teachers professional

development, and argumentation in the chemistry laboratory.
Miri Kesner is the Head of teachers professional unit, at the Davidson
Center, and Coordinator of Chemical Industry-Education Link Center in the
Department of Science Teaching of the Weizmann Institute of Science.
Rachel Mamlok-Naaman is a senior research associate at the Department
of Science teaching of the Weizmann Institute of Science, in Israel. She is
the head of the national center for chemistry teachers. Among her research
interest are: science teachers professional development, action research and
chemistry curriculum development.
Silvija Markic is a senior lecturer and researcher at the University of
Bremen (Germany) since summer 2009. Her research interests include science
teachers` beliefs and pedagogical content knowledge, linguistic heterogeneity
and cultural diversity in chemistry and science education, cooperative learning and alternative teaching methods.
Inga Meshulam is a high school chemistry teacher for 26 years and regional
guide for chemistry teachers in the Ministry f Education. She received her
B.Sc in medicinal chemistry in Bar-Ilan University and her MSc degree in
science education in the The Rothschild-Weizmann Program for Excellence in
Science Teaching in Weizmann Institute of Science.
Yamit Sharaabi-Naor is a high-school chemistry teacher. Post-Doc fellowship of the Department of Science teaching, at the Weizmann Institute of Science, with a Ph.D in Organic chemistry. He has an Excellence Certificate for
Guiding and Mentoring High school students.
Yael Shwartz is a senior scientist at the Weizmann Institute. Her research
interest is focused on chemical literacy and the value for teaching chemistry
to all. She also has a rich experience in designing and implementing various models of teachers professional development programs, including on-line
programs.
158
notes on contributors
SU BM ISSION GU IDELIN E S
Publication frequency
3 issues per year
Each number will focus on a specific theme.
Along with the articles, the journal will include other research materials such as casestudy reports, experiences and inquiries,
conceptual and methodological discussions,
on-going research papers and book reviews.
Submission
Authors are requested to submit their papers electronically by using the e-mail
sisyphus@ie.ulisboa.pt or our website
http://revistas.rcaap.pt/sisyphus.
Submission declaration
Sisyphus Journal of Education only publishes original articles, explicitly under the
strict condition that they have not been
published already, nor are they under
consideration for publication or in press
elsewhere (excluding abstracts or writings
extracted from conferences or theses). Articles must be sanctioned by all authors in
order to be published.
Instructions for authors
Review criteria
All submitted articles must be rigorous,
technically precise, and should put forward
a progressive perspective in relation to the
state of the art. They should also elucidate
and circumscribe the significance of the
subject matter, as well as the conceptual and
methodological orientations; the research
enquiry; the revision of the correlative and
most relevant publications on the subject;
and the presentation of all results and conclusions. The manuscripts must be essentially problematical; that is, they should draw
research vectors that open up new theoreti-
cal paths while suggesting methods to deal

with intrinsic interrogations. They must also
add new perspectives to current writings.
In order to be published, the articles must
focus on issues that can resonate with an
international audience, which is why they
should promote and be engaged in wideranging issues and debates that can be inscribed within a non-local agenda.
Language and use of language
All articles must be written in English (U.K.),
so that they may be read by an international
audience. National, colloquial terms and idiomatic expressions should be avoided. Nondiscriminatory language is mandatory for
all manuscripts: any words or expressions
conveying social prejudices are to be avoided.
Articles
Length: Articles submitted should not exceed 10,000 words.
Abstract: An abstract of 150 words is required for all submitted papers. It must
synthetize the articles main query, its
results and conclusions.
Key words: Each article should have 3 to 5
key words.
Use of word-processing software
All articles should be submitted in any editable format (docx, doc), and formatting
should be minimal.
References
All submitted articles must follow APA
Style, 6th edition. For detailed information, please see the Publication Manual of
the American Psychological Association,
6th edition (www.apastyle.org).
159
SCIENCE EDUCATION
IN THE 21ST CENTURY:
RACHEL MAMLOK-NAAMAN
& DVORA KATCHEVICH
SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY:

V O L . 0 2 I S S U E 2 2 0 1 4
Introduction by Rachel Mamlok-Naaman

and Dvora Katchevich
LINKING FORMAL AND NON-FORMAL LEARNING IN

SCIENCE EDUCATION A REFLECTION FROM TWO
CASES IN IRELAND AND GERMANY
Silvija Markic
CHEMISTRY TEACHERS INTRODUCE

HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENTS TO ADVANCED
TOPICS USING A POSTER EXHIBITION OF
CONTEMPORARY ORGANIC CHEMISTRY
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF OPEN-ENDED

INQUIRY-TYPE CHEMISTRY EXPERIMENTS
THAT ENABLE ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSE
j o u rnal of edu cati on v ol .2
HETEROGENEITY CHALLENGE AND/OR

OPPORTUNITY IN SCIENCE EDUCATION?
Dvora Katchevich, Rachel Mamlok-Naaman

and Avi Hofstein
ENHANCING STUDENTS
MOTIVATION TO LEARN CHEMISTRY

INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION
AND SPECIAL NEEDS TEACHERS
REFLECTIONS ON AN INCLUSIVE SETTING
Simone Abels
I S S N : 2 1 8 2 - 8 4 74
9722182847056
05
j ou r na l o f ed u ca t i on v o l . 2

Sisyphus - Journal of Education - Vol 2, Issue 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sisyphus - Journal of Education - Vol 2, Issue 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCIENCE EDUCATION

IN THE 21ST CENTURY:

SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY:

Introduction by Rachel Mamlok-Naaman

LINKING FORMAL AND NON-FORMAL LEARNING IN

Nicole Garner, Sarah M. Hayes and Ingo Eilks

CHEMISTRY TEACHERS INTRODUCE

Ron Blonder and Inga Meshulam

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF OPEN-ENDED

j o u rnal of edu cati on v ol .2

HETEROGENEITY CHALLENGE AND/OR

Dvora Katchevich, Rachel Mamlok-Naaman

Yamit Sharaabi-Naor, Miri Kesner and Yael Shwartz

SC IENC E EDUC AT ION

About this journal

Science Education in the 21st Century: Challenges and Concerns

Heterogeneity Challenge and/or Opportunity in Science Education?

Chemistry Teachers Introduce High-School Students to Advanced

The Characteristics of Open-Ended Inquiry-Type Chemistry

Enhancing Students Motivation to Learn Chemistry

Inquiry-Based Science Education and Special Needs

Science Education in the 21st Century:

Students learn to do inquiry in the context of science content and develop

science education in the 21st century: challenges and concerns

rachel mamlok-naaman | dvora katchevich

linking formal and non-formal learning in science

Linking Formal and Non-Formal

science departments in universities, towards non-obligatory science courses

SC IENC E EDUC AT ION IN T HE IR ISH T R A NSIT ION Y E A R

linking formal and non-formal learning in science education

The educational categorization of the TY is complex and it is difficult to

linking formal and non-formal learning in science education

responsibility in learning, activity-based learning, integration of appropriate

linking formal and non-formal learning in science education

SC IENC E EDUC AT ION U N DER INC LUSION

linking formal and non-formal learning in science education

linking formal and non-formal learning in science education

The teachers indicated that it is difficult for them to conduct appropriate

linking formal and non-formal learning in science education

The students particularly highlighted the experimental approach that often

linking formal and non-formal learning in science education

P O T EN T I A L S, LIM ITAT IONS A ND R ISK S OF NONA N D PA RT I A LLY NON-FOR M A L LE A R N ING

linking formal and non-formal learning in science education

ented pedagogy and curriculum orientation throughout their classes outside

linking formal and non-formal learning in science education

linking formal and non-formal learning in science education

implementation and evaluation of an in-school promotional intervention. Unpublished

nicole garner | sarah m. hayes | ingo eilks

heterogeneity challenge and/or opportunity

Heterogeneity Challenge and/or

heterogeneity challenge and/or opportunity in science education?

English-speaking countries mainly use the term diversity. As mentioned

Difference not acknowledged.

Difference seen as a challenge

Difference seen as an asset

figure 1 paradigm shift from homogeneity to heterogeneity to diversity

figure 2 diversity wheel (retrieved january 1, 2014,

heterogeneity challenge and/or opportunity in science education?

This project is based on the Participatory Action Research (PAR) method of

figure 3 par in science education

figure 4 par group in the present project

heterogeneity challenge and/or opportunity in science education?

analysis of relevant literature; collecting ideas for methods and